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

5. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR while supporting the order of Ld. AO has submitted that assessee had a contracted agreement with DMSML and DMSPL to carry out its work like advertisement, sales promotion of products manufactured by it. This ITAT 160 of 2024 -6- is covered under the definition of works contract under section 194C on which TDS

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-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. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: "3) We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as for the assessee. Section 194C of the Act, as is well known, pertains to payments to contractors. Sub-section (1) of section 194C, as it stood at the relevant time, required that any person responsible for paying

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 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 ?

5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/170/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XIX VS. KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And 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

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

Section 43(5) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed the same. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the transactions made through the stock broker had been held to be sham transactions when the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue relating to derivative loss and those findings will also be equally applicable to the issue relating to the loss in shares

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. HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of along with the

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

section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with circular no.8/2009, dated November 24, 2009, issued by the CBDT? 3 (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the conclusion arried at by the Learned Tribunal in granting the aforesaid relief to the assessee is perverse?” We have heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, learned senior standing

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.

TDS certificate the amount received was Rs.5,56,88,817/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the respondent/assessee for the difference of Rs.3,74,85,859/-. The assessee explained that it has been receiving advances from its clients, a portion of which was spent on behalf of the client for counsels’ fees, stamp paper, court-fees stamp, payment

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.

TDS certificate the amount received was Rs.5,56,88,817/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the respondent/assessee for the difference of Rs.3,74,85,859/-. The assessee explained that it has been receiving advances from its clients, a portion of which was spent on behalf of the client for counsels’ fees, stamp paper, court-fees stamp, payment

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

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

Section 194C of the Act when the said provision has nothing to do with the accrual of income in the hands of the recipients when the assessee under the law was not entitled to claim payment until fulfilment of the terms of contract and expiry of the period for which the retention money was withheld and, as such, under

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 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

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.

5 KOLKATA VS DEBABRATA BANERJEE BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 18th July, 2025. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant. The Court : - This appeal by the Income Tax department has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against

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 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL SALE CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed

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

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was bad in law? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed in law by holding that assessing officer erred in jumping to the consolation that assessee’s income ahs escaped assessment on receipt of certain information and assessing officer could not have formed a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped

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