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

section 194H. The SLPs filed by the Department in the mater of Living Media Ltd. And Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11-12-2009 and order dated 5-5-2014, respectively. Though these decisions are in respect of print media, the ratio is also applicable to electronic media/television advertising as the board

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), holding that the appellant had failed to deduct TDS on payments made to the related entities and thus, these payments were disallowable as expenses in the appellant’s hands. 7

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

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 COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 12. Mr. Rai further contended that the first appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue regarding disallowance of amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by approaching the said issue from a wrong angle. He contended that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal directed

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 was factually not on the statute book, all deductions liable to be made and the assessment years in question (in the said case) being prior to 2012. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision

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 was factually not on the statute book, all deductions liable to be made and the assessment years in question (in the said case) being prior to 2012. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision

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

7,35,35,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) was issued and thereafter notice under Section 142(2) was issued and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessee is a firm involved in the business of trading/ retailing of footwear and other leather and non- leather accessories

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 ?

7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/56/2013 IA NO. GA/2/2013 (Old No.GA/573/2013) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XX, KOLKATA VS. THE MAYFAIR HOSPITAL 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

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

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

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

7 out by the assessee for deleting the addition of Rs.3,19,76,907/-. Therefore, the first issue is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) are set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored. The second issue is with

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