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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

disallowance under Section 14A was not correct and it will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the assessing officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In any event, the assessing officer will have to record its satisfaction to the said effect. As pointed out earlier the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction

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

Section 195 of the Act. 12. Mr. Rai further contended that the first appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue regarding disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

disallowance of expenses under Section 14A ? (vi) 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.1,71,99,475/- being 12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

disallowance of expenses under Section 14A ? (vi) 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.1,71,99,475/- being 12

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-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

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

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act" 10. In the instant case also, as detailed above, the assessee company has not deducted the TDS of payment made to the transporters as per sub-section(6) of section 194(c). However, the details of the transporters have been filled-in in the TDS return, wherein

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

12 and Non-Fiscal concessions for the special category sates of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States with a view to give boost to the economy in those States. By insertion of Section 80IC of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2004 deduction was allowed for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises

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

12 and Non-Fiscal concessions for the special category sates of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States with a view to give boost to the economy in those States. By insertion of Section 80IC of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2004 deduction was allowed for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises

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

12 and Non-Fiscal concessions for the special category sates of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States with a view to give boost to the economy in those States. By insertion of Section 80IC of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2004 deduction was allowed for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises

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

12 and Non-Fiscal concessions for the special category sates of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States with a view to give boost to the economy in those States. By insertion of Section 80IC of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2004 deduction was allowed for ten years from the profits of new undertakings or enterprises

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 (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, 1961 was defective. Consequently, the ITAT has not committed any error of law or fact to set aside both the penalties. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has relied upon the following judgments: 12 i) (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning

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

12. We find that neither “LIC Mutual Fund” Trust is mentioned in the list given under Sub-section (1) of Section 4A nor the “LIC Mutual Fund” Trust has been established or constituted by or under any Central Act. Therefore, the “LIC Mutual Fund” Trust is not a public financial institution under Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Consequently

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT CONSTRUCTION

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not called for. The CITA further records that the assessee had claimed that they had carried out the transport business by hiring trucks and not through their own trucks. Therefore, the CITA came to the conclusion that it would be reasonable in the interest of natural justice that the profit is estimated

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, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

12%. The proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 44AD provides that it is applicable only if the gross receipt are loss that 5 Rs. 40 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities can take the help of general principles of law laid down in Section 44AD and it does not mean that it has applied it ipso facto