COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.B.P. PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal [ITA/458/2008] filed by the revenue

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

TDS under section 194H is attracted. 4. The issue has been examined by the Allahabad High Court in the case

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The appellant is a unit of the Dey's Medical Stores Group, involved in the manufacture of products including Keo Karpin Hair Oil (cosmetic products) and certain medicines. The Group comprises the appellant, Dey's Medical Stores Private Limited ("Cosmetics Manufacturing Company

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

TDS under Section 195 of the Act can be held liable to deduct such sums, at a time when Explanation 4

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

TDS under Section 195 of the Act can be held liable to deduct such sums, at a time when Explanation 4

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

4 of 13 8. The learned Tribunal by an order dated February 17, 2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that no disallowance could be made under Sections 40(a)(i)/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the issue of capital gains

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

TDS from the tax payable by her for the assessment year 2005-06. The appellate authority by order dated 18th November, 2013 dismissed the application on the ground that the plea raised by the assessee was beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal against the said order before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. EMC LTD

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

TDS provision at the time of said decision relied upon and there was no concept of accrual of income under clause (2) of Section 194C of the Act ? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that assessee has changed its method of computation of Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. TAPAN KANTI ROY

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

4 of the learned Tribunal’s order is read as follows:- “We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also gone through the documents before us. Right at the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that the provisions of section 68 of the Act cast an onus on any assessee to prove a loan transaction from the point of verifiability

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

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

TDS Rs.30,51,616/- Refundable Rs.30,51,616/- 3 From the above computation, it is seen that the book profit is a negative balance. Therefore, even assuming that we are to take it for consideration the question of law which has been admitted and assuming such question is decided in favour of the revenue, the result would be the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

TDS Rs.30,51,616/- Refundable Rs.30,51,616/- 3 From the above computation, it is seen that the book profit is a negative balance. Therefore, even assuming that we are to take it for consideration the question of law which has been admitted and assuming such question is decided in favour of the revenue, the result would be the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SILIGURI vs. SMT NIRMALI BHADRA

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” SMC Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.77/Kol/2019 for the assessment years 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: 2 (i) Whether the Learned

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

TDS which has been deducted by the assessee has not been disputed by the department which will go to indicate their statutory compliance. Further, reliance was placed on the decision in Nipun Builders and Developers by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable as it is an admitted fact that the notices under Section 133(6) were duly served on the companies

THE PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 3 , KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed, consequently the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: January 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant/Revenue Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Soumyajyoti Nandy, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th February, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No. 171/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration :-

TDS). Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant company for the payment made to M/s Shalini Properties & Developers Pv. Ltd. is a revenue expenditure.” But this finding was tested for its correctness by the Tribunal and the Tribunal after taking note of the factual position in 4

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

4 of 12 has occurred in the previous assessment. Thus, the CIT(A) held that the assessee has proved its bona fide as an investor of shares and taking totality of the facts into consideration, the assessee was allowed to compute the income arising from purchase and sale of shares to be income arising from investment chargeable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) , KOLKATA vs. NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the

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

TDS) KOLKATA -Versus- NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 22nd July, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. DEBABRATA BANERJEE

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 18Th July, 2025.

TDS of Rs.48,48,836/- which the deducting authority wrongly uploaded in different PAN number. We find from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment that it is the very same amount which was paid to the assessee by the Siliguri/Jalpaiguri Development Authority and in the reasons the Assessing Officer has not stated