JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 94(7)(b) of the Act, had expired before the amendment was made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 in respect of the units of mutual fund under consideration except in the case of units of M/s. Reliance Vision Fund in which the assessee incurred loss of Rs. 16,53,820/- and the dividend received

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

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.

Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts of the amounts from the clients should have been routed by the assessee through his books of account. Since

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.

Section 145 of the Act, 1961 and submits that the respondent assessee should 4 have first included the aforesaid differential amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- in the books and thereafter should have claimed expenses. In other words, the entire receipts of the amounts from the clients should have been routed by the assessee through his books of account. Since