PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

deduction while computing the total income. Thus the tribunal after re-examining the facts upheld the finding of the CIT(A). Thus, we find that no substantial question of law arising therefrom. The second issue was with regard to whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance on account of foreign exchange fluctuation. On this issue, the tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY

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

capital gains (LTCG) on sale of tenancy right and interest from fixed deposits during the year. The assessing officer noted that the assessee sold a tenancy right for a total consideration of Rs.10 crores out of which she had claimed deduction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SRI RAHUL SARAF

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 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : September 20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent

capital gain from sale of shares nor claimed any deduction under Section 54F in his return of income for the assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

capital loss of Rs. 2,79,36,337/- against the short term gain computed on depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAXPAYERS UNITS),KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

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

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is 11 hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business loss (other than speculative loss) of earlier years shall be allowed to be set-off only against the profits

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

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

Capital gains” and “Income from other sources”; or (b) the principal business of the assessee is not the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances.” On appeal preferred, the CIT (Appeals) held as follows : “As per the gross total income worked out above, the business income of the appellant will be 11.5% of total gross income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

deduction in the name of capital receipt representing the trade tax component on exempted sales, is a self devised mechanism and not permitted under law. Such a receipt is not of capital nature but being part of sale price of the goods, is certainly revenue receipt. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed a manifest error law in passing

COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - I vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

deduction in the name of capital receipt representing the trade tax component on exempted sales, is a self devised mechanism and not permitted under law. Such a receipt is not of capital nature but being part of sale price of the goods, is certainly revenue receipt. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed a manifest error law in passing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBLE INDIA LTD

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

deduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) payments which is payable in future years and not crystallized expenditure of this year is in the nature of provision to meet the future liability? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in holding the consideration received on sale proceeds of assessee’s chemical undertaking

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

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

capital gains and not business profit and its purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?” We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned Counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Asim Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3 On going through the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the tribunal was considering six issues

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

deduction of interest on borrowed capital without first satisfying itself that the borrowed capital had been utilized for the purpose of 2 business in accordance with Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Despite full disclosure of facts regarding loans given by the assessee to its subsidiary companies and source of funds

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

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

capital gains under section 50B and section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,84,00,909/- being 60% of the aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircrafts without considering that the aircrafts were

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

capital gains, against profits in subsequent years. The decision of the Supreme Court emphasizes that under the charging provisions of the Act, income must be comprehensively understood as including a loss. The principle that income would include a loss has also been re-affirmed in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. J.H. Gotla

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly the same stands dismissed without

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th May, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

Capital Gain of Rs.20,00,00,000/- on account of advance received from transfer of rights to purchase “the sale shares” at a future date without considering the fact that as per the binding agreement though the transfer of shares was to compulsorily happen at a future date but receipt of the advance payment was done during the year under

C.I.T CENTRAL I vs. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

deduction of Rs.4,59,22,88/- under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act has to be computed on the basis of net profit as disclosed in the profit and loss account and not on the basis of the assessed business income of the assessee and in that view allowed relief under Section 80HHC of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 13, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Ms. Manju Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 11Th March, 2018 In I.T.A. No. 1987/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- I) Whether The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Overlooking The Terms & Conditions As Provided In Section 139(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ? Ii) Whether The Illegal Validation Of The Deposit Made Beyond The Period Legalized Or Validated As Omission, Thereby, The Assessee Getting The

deduction of Rs.10 crores under section 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 completely ignoring the cumulative conditions laid down in section 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Manju Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The short questions which falls for consideration

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

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

capital nature at the time when they were received. The present case is one of a trading liability being earlier allowed as a deduction and which is sought to be recalled under Section 41(1) of the Act. At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Company Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought