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

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 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-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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income- tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; x x x 15) On a perusal of the said provision, it is evident that

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. M/S BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 2, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. ..For The 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 Dated 23Rd November, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 2112/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

deduction under Section 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of “interest income” of Rs.57,93,000/- on sale of scrap by treating it as income derived from profits and gains of industrial undertaking? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.38

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA 4 vs. M/S BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITD

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

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

deduction under Section 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of “interest income” of Rs.57,93,000/- on sale of scrap by treating it as income derived from profits and gains of industrial undertaking? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.38

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 :

gain resulting on other receivable/payables treating the same to be notional in nature? (d) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,54,059/- by holding that the same being liquidated damages received from the suppliers on account of delayed installation of machineries and delayed construction of 3 building was a capital

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.

deducting any money owing to the solicitor by the client for costs or other reason. If misconduct was not alleged the application was formerly a proper one to make at chambers, and it is now usually made there by summons under a special rule of Court, and the order may be enforced by attachment if it comes within an exception

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.

deducting any money owing to the solicitor by the client for costs or other reason. If misconduct was not alleged the application was formerly a proper one to make at chambers, and it is now usually made there by summons under a special rule of Court, and the order may be enforced by attachment if it comes within an exception

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

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

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

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

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

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

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

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

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

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

capital of the company. As on 31.03.2020, BCL continues to have a total of 7,70,05,347 shares. The promoters comprises at present 23 companies and societies and one individual i.e. the estate of PDB holding a total of 4,84,34,191 shares equivalent to 62.90% of the total share capital. After elaborately referring to the genesis