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 :

13. The next substantial question of law (e) is with regard to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the tune

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

13. Moreover, it is submitted that the recipients have included these reimbursements in their taxable incomes and have paid the applicable taxes, which negates any justification for disallowing these amounts under 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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 13,68,50,370/- paid as commission to and sitting fees to directors

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 48(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act. The above decision was referred to in the case of Dilip Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non-Corporate Circle-II, Chennai, (2019) 111 taxmann.com 52 (Madras), wherein it was held as follows :- “13

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

13], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act, 1961 in the context of surrender of income after search and seizure and after observing that surrender of income is concealment as the surrender was not voluntary, and held as under:- “9. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried

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

13. The language of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 43B of the Act, 1961 being plain and unambiguous, no interpretation can be given, other than what is clearly expressed by the plain language of the aforesaid provisions. The list of public financial institutions given in Sub- section (1) of Section 4A of the Companies

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

disallowed. The reasoning of the assessing officer in all these three years is that the assessee has not undertaken any expansion. As rightly noted by the CIT(A), a consistent approach is required to Page 6 of 12 be adopted by the department unless and until the department is able to establish a factual distinction in a particular assessment year

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

disallowed. The reasoning of the assessing officer in all these three years is that the assessee has not undertaken any expansion. As rightly noted by the CIT(A), a consistent approach is required to Page 6 of 12 be adopted by the department unless and until the department is able to establish a factual distinction in a particular assessment year

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

disallowed. The reasoning of the assessing officer in all these three years is that the assessee has not undertaken any expansion. As rightly noted by the CIT(A), a consistent approach is required to Page 6 of 12 be adopted by the department unless and until the department is able to establish a factual distinction in a particular assessment year

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

disallowed. The reasoning of the assessing officer in all these three years is that the assessee has not undertaken any expansion. As rightly noted by the CIT(A), a consistent approach is required to Page 6 of 12 be adopted by the department unless and until the department is able to establish a factual distinction in a particular assessment year

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

disallowed under section 40 A (9) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer and the CITA failed to take note of the vital facts that IICM is not a firm/trust/association/company set up for the general welfare of the employees. Further, the amount paid by holding company to IICM and subsequent payment made by the assessee company represent fee for participation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground

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

disallowance of the claim of deduction of Rs.3,40,13,592/- made by the assessee under section 10B of the Income

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-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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA