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

disallowed the loss to the extent of dividend of Rs. 1,50,79,850/- and added the same to the assessee’s total income. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), VIII, Kolkata [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) on considering the facts held that the assessee has been investing in shares

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground

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

business income. Further the learned tribunal has pointed out that the revenue did not controvert the contention raised by the assessee that no deduction in respect of these expenses was allowed in the prior years and the tax rate in the earlier years and in the year under consideration were same and therefore irrespective of the year of deduction allowed

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping the objective behind section 14A of the Act in mind

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

business expenses and, accordingly, disclosed additional income pursuant to the search in the assessment year 2006-07. Thus, a total sum of Rs.4,99,00,000/- was admitted as undisclosed income in the assessment year 2006-07 which forms part of total disclosure of Rs.27 crores of the Group made under section 132(4) of the Act, 1961. 5. Similarly

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

income or business receipts and no further disallowance can be made. Similar issue arose for consideration in the case of Commissioner

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax ACt, 1961 3 is not applicable on this issue without assigning any findings as regards the inapplicability of the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Prithu

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed by the assessee while computing its income: Rs.41,047/-. Total Rs.9,29,49,804/-. 7. The CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata in appeal no. 264/CIT(A)-VI/Cir- 6/11-12/Kol disposed of the appeal by a detailed order dated 9.11.2012 while determining the total income at Rs.1,79,98,687/- by appellant and net profit rate of 8% on the contract received

M/S8 BANMILA COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed

Bench: :

disallowed by relying upon the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act ? We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learnd Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/revenue. The short question involved in the instant case is whether the income of Rs.2,61,160/- which was offered under the head `Business

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 :

disallowance of Rs.21,16,23,729/- of interest in terms of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules 1962, without considering the fact that the assessee was having interest bearing borrowings which were used for mixed purposes including investment and without appreciating the effect of the clarificatory amendment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

disallowances under Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

disallowances under Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

disallowable capital loss. He set aside the order. Thereafter, the assessee appealed to the ITAT "B" Bench, Kolkata, which, by order dated October 23, 2024, upheld the AO's view in line with the CBDT Instruction dated May 2, 2016. Being aggrieved by the order, the revenue preferred the present appeals under Section 260A. 4. Learned counsel appearing

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

disallowing the bad debts on the ground that it was only a provision. In this regard, we were required to examine the factual position and we have done so, as could be seen from the balance sheet as at 31.3.2005 in the Current Assets, Loans and Advances column. It has been stated as follows : Sundry debtors (Stated to be good

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ZULU MERCHANDISE PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed the order passed by

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

disallowed and added to the total income. In response thereto, the reply was submitted by the assessee, among other things, contending that they have purchased and sold shares in the companies in the normal course of their business

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 8 vs. M/S PRICE WATER HOUSE

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

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

disallowed and a sum of Rs.3,34,56,529/- debited in profit and loss account as PWC Global Services charges is not allowable as the PWC Global Service has no direct or indirect nexus in running or functioning of the respondent/assessee’s business and also raised objection of incorrect computation of partners’ salary under Section 40(b) of the Income

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

disallowance of deduction and adding back the sum being unclaimed credit balances unilaterally written back (credited to the profit and loss account). The said question was answered in the following terms:- The tribunal has followed its order for assessment year 1990-1991. That apart, in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sugauli Sugar Works Private Limited, the Supreme Court affirmed

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

Income Tax, Delhi vs. Woodward Governor India (P). Ltd. reported in [2009]179 Taxman 326 (SC). Thus, there is no error in the finding rendered by the tribunal. The tribunal was considering three other issues together and recorded its finding in paragraph 15 of the impugned order. The three issues being whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting disallowance

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

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

income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under section 14A? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition on account of interest amounting to Rs.3,80,69,705/- being 12% of interest free advances given to subsidiary companies for non business