PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOKATA vs. M/S. L.G.W. LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. …For 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 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 5Th October, 2018 In I.T.A. No.1786/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: - A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Has Misinterpreted Section 194C, More Particularly 194C (7) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 31A Of The Income

4)(vi). It is submitted that the deductor at the time of preparing statement of tax, deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of the compliance of provision of sub-Section 6 of Section 194C by the payee. Section 234(E) was relied to state that if the statement

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was passed by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced below: “1. The assessee company submitted its return of income on 16.11.2004 declaring total income at NIL which was duly processed

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4) stated to have made with the sole intention to get the immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act is in contravention to explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). That is why undisclosed income of Rs. 10.63 Crore was included in the return of income filed u/s 153A only in pursuant to search

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 :

11 The finding rendered by the Tribunal reflects the correct position and, accordingly, substantial question of law (d) is decided against the revenue. 13. The next substantial question of law (e) is with regard to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the tune of Rs.21,16,23,729/-. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance on account

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

4. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant, pursuant to agreements dated April 1, 2004 and July 14, 2004, reimbursed the Cosmetics Manufacturing Company and the Medicine Manufacturing Company substantial sums towards various expenses incurred on its behalf. Specifically, the appellant reimbursed Rs.1,89,60,902/- towards advertisement expenses and Rs.57,08,489/- towards marketing staff expenses

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4(a) to Section 43B provides that “public financial institutions” shall have the meaning assigned to it under 11 Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 is reproduced below:- “[4A. Public financial institutions. – (1) Each of the financial institutions specified in this sub- section shall be regarded, for the purposes of this

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

4 of 13 8. The learned Tribunal by an order dated February 17, 2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that no disallowance could be made under Sections 40(a)(i)/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the issue of capital gains

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

11 of the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.3,58,81,107/-, which is exempt under Section 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

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

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

4 assessing officer to increase the deduction under Section 80HHC on the basis of the total income determined in the assessment. The assessing officer after discussing the case with the assessee passed an order on 19.9.1997 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) allowing the enhanced deduction under Section 80HHC as per computation filed by the assessee in their

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, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

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

11, 2014 has been held to the illegal or ultravires? We have heard Mr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J P Khaitan, learned senior counsel with Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The short issue involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right in upholding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION,KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

section 11(1)(a) on administrative and establishment expenses of Rs.3,54,12,977/-. On this issue, the department has accepted the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Janahit Trust reported in 208 ITR 372? (iv) Whether disallowance of set off of earlier years of losses of Rs.6,04,16,031/- The Income

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

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

disallowed the claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order

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

11,82,37,000/-. The assessee in its return of income for the assessment ITAT NO. 259 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 3 of 18 year under consideration claimed Rs. 4,08,23,000/- as prior paid adjustment and in the details thereof, the same had been stated as general expenditure in nature. The assessing officer called upon the assessee

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

disallowance under section 14A to 20 lacs instead of Rs.8,08,62,345/- without observing the facts and findings of the Assessing officer and as such the same is perverse or not?” Since the revenue as well as the assessee are aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

disallowance under section 14A to 20 lacs instead of Rs.8,08,62,345/- without observing the facts and findings of the Assessing officer and as such the same is perverse or not?” Since the revenue as well as the assessee are aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , KOLKATA 2 vs. M/S HOOGLY MILLS CO LTD

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax

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

4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No. GA 2 of 2018 (Old No. GA 93 of 2018) in ITAT 10 of 2018 PRINCIPAL COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA Vs M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD. AND IA No. GA 1 of 2018 (Old No. GA 92 of 2018) in ITAT

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

4 of 12 For the sake of convenience of the Court, a consolidated judgment is passed and the Ministry of Law & Justice shall construe this judgment and order to be individual judgment in each of the appeals. 7. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit to the respondent/assessee under