PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOKATA vs. M/S. L.G.W. LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, 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 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 5Th October, 2018 In I.T.A. No.1786/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: - A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Has Misinterpreted Section 194C, More Particularly 194C (7) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 31A Of The Income

40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act" 10. In the instant case also, as detailed above, the assessee company has not deducted the TDS

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

Section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,37,48,429/- paid as commission to non residents without considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4 We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned

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

Section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,37,48,429/- paid as commission to non residents without considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4 We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned

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

40 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/458/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, KOLKATA -Versus- ABP PRIVATE LIMITED Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv. Mr. S. Datta, Adv. Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Adv. . . . for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX vs. KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.4.2011 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 1595 /Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Dated September 28, 2011 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law : (I) ‘Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Decision Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Carriage Charge” Of Rs.21,83,220/- Under Section 40(A)(Ia) For Which Tds Has Not Been Deducted Under Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Deciding The Same Question At All? (Ii) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Wages” In Respect Of Rs.10,44,230/- Without Deciding The Same Question At All ?

Section 40(a)(ia) for which TDS has not been deducted under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without

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.

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable only to the amount of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March every year, not on the expenditure which has been actually paid during the previous year without deducting the TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -XX, KOLKATA vs. THE MAYFAIR HOSPITAL

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.5.2012 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 193/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. The Revenue Has Suggested The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Deleting The Addition Incurred By The Hospital For Doctor’S Charges, Pathology Charges, Doctor’S Fees & Commission Payment Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Read With Section 194 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961? Ii) Whether The Provision Can Exempt Those Deductors Who Make Payment To Its Clients Within A Previous Year But Not Comply With The Tds Provisions In Terms Of Chapter-Xvii-B Out Of Purview Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

40(a)(ia) read with Section 194 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? II) Whether the provision can exempt those deductors who make payment to its clients within a previous year but not comply with the TDS

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

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act. The department assailed the order of Tribunal before this Court and the said appeal was disposed of modifying the order relatable to the percentage of depreciation without interfering and touching upon the merit and the other part of the order of the Tribunal. This Court held that the petitioner is entitled

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act. The department assailed the order of Tribunal before this Court and the said appeal was disposed of modifying the order relatable to the percentage of depreciation without interfering and touching upon the merit and the other part of the order of the Tribunal. This Court held that the petitioner is entitled

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