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

disallowance by the Tribunal. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the payments amounting to Rs.2,86,88,459/-, which comprises of advertisement, sales promotion and marketing expenses, along with Rs.48,19,050/- towards handling, storing and collection charges, were purely reimbursements and did not constitute income or expenditure in the appellant’s hands that would attract

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowance on depreciation and thus the net profit came to 5 Rs.77,41,629/-. The loss carried forward by the assessee from previous year was Rs.2,88,71,747/- and after adjusting the aforesaid net profit, the loss carried forward for the next year was Rs.2,11,30,118/-. In the admitted facts of the case, the respondent assessee

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 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, deduction under Section 801A, deduction under Section 80IC. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Kolkata. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the said

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

10(34) and they were called upon to explain why expenses related to dividend earned from shares held as investment be disallowed under Section 14A, as per formula provided in rule 8D of the Rules. The assessee had stated that they had voluntarily made a disallowance of Rs.10 lakhs. However, on going through the order of assessment dated

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

10. The revenue suggested the following substantial questions of law in this appeal:- “ (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of CIT Appeal in Holding that provision of Section 5, Section 9, Section

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

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

12% of interest free advances given to subsidiary companies for non business purpose based on the presumption that those advances were made by the assessee out of its own funds and not out of the borrowed funds bearing interest? (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT) KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

10 of 12 Industries Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 the Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT2 and held as follows: “Two important issues have been pointed out in the aforementioned decision. Firstly that the provisions of section 14A has to be interpreted, particularly, the words that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT), KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

10 of 12 Industries Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 the Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT2 and held as follows: “Two important issues have been pointed out in the aforementioned decision. Firstly that the provisions of section 14A has to be interpreted, particularly, the words that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT) KOLKATA vs. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

10 of 12 Industries Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 the Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT2 and held as follows: “Two important issues have been pointed out in the aforementioned decision. Firstly that the provisions of section 14A has to be interpreted, particularly, the words that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SUVARNA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD

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

10 of 12 Industries Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 the Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT2 and held as follows: “Two important issues have been pointed out in the aforementioned decision. Firstly that the provisions of section 14A has to be interpreted, particularly, the words that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

12 of 150 Chemicals and Investment Limited as part of colourable device to generate fictitious LTCG with the aim to evade taxes due. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,23,500/- overlooking the fact