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

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

TDS from the payments made to transporters ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal has incorrectly interpreted Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 while dealing with the issue as to whether the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the freight expenses on application of the said rule read with section 194C

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

48,02,479/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also enhanced the long term capital gain on sale of Chennai land by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Page 3 of 13 5. The order under Section 143(3) dated December 30, 2010 was rectified by the Assessing Officer on January

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