THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2 recorded by the assessing officer relate to the liability of the respondent assessee under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 and escapement of tax to the tune of Rs.6,11,892/-. The third reason recorded by the assessing officer was that the loss available in the previous year was Rs.40,66,962/- but the carried forward loss has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

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

depreciation etc. Aggrieved by such order the assessee preferred an appeal before the leaned Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to take note of the material irregularity committed by the Assessing Officer while initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for reopening assessment under Section 147 without noting the vital fact that

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:

2 of Section 115 WA and contended that the sub-Section starting with a non-obstente clause makes it clear that the provisions contained in the aforesaid Chapter are applicable to fringe benefits made available to the employees by an employer. She contended that no concession has been made in the statute for applicability of Rule 8. It is, therefore

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

2 expenditure and added the component of the interest to the income and made an assessment of the tax payable by the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the decision of the assessing officer, which was further challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal succinctly jotted down the core issues involved therein. The first issue relates

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

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

2 expenditure and added the component of the interest to the income and made an assessment of the tax payable by the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the decision of the assessing officer, which was further challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal succinctly jotted down the core issues involved therein. The first issue relates

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

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

2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: - a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in holding that depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT LTD

Accordingly the appeal ITAT/173/2021 fails and is dismissed

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

2 and find the reasons given for the inordinate delay are far from satisfactory. However, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant requested that the Court may consider the merits of the matter. The learned Counsel for respondent was also willing for such course being adopted. Therefore, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay. ITAT/173/2021 This appeal filed

PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED

In the result, the substantial questions of law framed

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s. Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. as submitted by the assessee itself ? v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing 30% depreciation amounting to 3 Rs.14,68,279/- in the Assessment Year 2009-10 as claimed by the assessee since the same is entitled to 15

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 ?

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 of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting

M/S C AND E LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA 4 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order

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

15, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 636/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) Whether the Learned Tribunal failed to consider that where the deduction under Section 801C was granted for substantial expansion for an initial assessment year

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

2 section 28(IV) or 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, depends upon this?” We find that the question raised in this appeal arising from the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is concluded by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.6949-6950 of 2004 (The Commissioner Vs. Mahindra

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : November 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Itat No. 1461/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether The Assessee Was Entitled To Get Benefit Of Additional Depreciation @10% Amounting To Rs.1,35,64,743/- On The Assets Purchased & Put To Use On Latter Half Of The Financial Year 2012-13 Or Not ? Ii) Whether The Provisions Of Sec. 14A R.W. Rules, 1962 Could Be Invoked To Determine The Expenses Related To The Exempt Income Or Not ? We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Duly Assisted By Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The For The Respondent.

15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/183/2022 IA NO. GA/2/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA Vs M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : NOVEMBER 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

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

2 desirous of hearing the merits of the matter and also put such a suggestion to the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. As both the learned counsel have agreed, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being IA No.GA/1/2021 is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue