PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

2) was issued and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessee is a firm involved in the business of trading/ retailing of footwear and other leather and non- leather accessories. The Assessing Officer on examination of the assessment records noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee had received unsecured loans from various

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

TDS for information technology expense, information technology expense, patent registration charges, advances written off, excise duty debited to profit and loss account, disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made for export commission, disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made to foreign parties, bogus purchases, liquidated damages, income tax interest expense, commission to non-executive directors, disallowance under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act. In response to such notices, the assessee’s authorised representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. With regard to the first issue, namely, the loss on derivative, the assessee claimed the loss arising from future option, loss on transaction entered on National Stock Exchange (NSE) as appeared in Form 10DB

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various industrial and mechanical gases, cryogenic and non-cryogenic plants and vessels. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging that tax was not deducted at source in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect

SMT. CHETNA JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 20Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For Respondent

2 involved application of a provision namely Section 199 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which squarely came within purview of section 154 and hence rectifiable?” We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing Counsel for the respondent department. The short question involved in this case is whether the assessing officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA vs. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

TDS were deducted on such claims. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that these details were furnished to the Assessing Officer after a notice under Section 143(2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XI,KOLKATA vs. M/S CLASSIC CREATION

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 28Th July, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate for the appellant. 2 As could be seen from the assessment order dated 3.12.2010 passed under Section 143

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

2. This appeal was admitted by an order dated 24.08.2011 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in overlooking the fact that the alleged “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

2. This appeal was admitted by an order dated 24.08.2011 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in overlooking the fact that the alleged “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee