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

8. However, the revenue, herein the respondent challenged this finding before the Tribunal, which partially upheld the assessing officer’s disallowance relating to sales promotion, advertisement, marketing expenses and handling and collection charges. Owing to which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant against this partial confirmation of disallowance by the Tribunal. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing

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

13. This very issue was considered by us in the decision in the case of CIT v. Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 386 (Mad.) and we rejected such a contention raised by the Revenue in the following terms : “6. We find Sub-section (6) of Section 194C is the provision which grants benefit to the 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

13,68,50,370/- paid as commission to and sitting fees to directors of the 5 company without deducting tax at source under section 194H of the Income Tax Act? (x) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3

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

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

disallowed the aforesaid amount of interest of Rs.9,75,16,996/- on unsecured debentures on the ground that it has not been paid within the stipulated period. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, the appellant/assessee filed an Appeal No.357/XII/Cir- 10/2011-12 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Kolkata which was partly allowed by order dated 19.8.2013. The appellant/assessee succeeded

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

disallowed the claimed revenue expenditure of Rs.28,89,56,652/- towards interest paid and accordingly did not add Rs.2,89,68,884/- in the income of the assessee. These facts are very much evident from paragraph 8 and the computation part of the original assessment order dated 27.03.2000. CIT(A) did not consider the jurisdictional issue of initiation of proceedings

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed the various expenses as these were not verified in response to the notice issue under section 133(6) of the Act. But the Id. CIT(A) has 7 treated the income of the assessee @ 8% of the gross receipt. So the Revenue is in appeal before us. Now the question before us arises for adjudication is as to whether

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

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

13,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 respectively on account of ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’? h) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,28,25,18,000/- on account of ‘Current Liabilities

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

13 of 18 Commissioner of Income Tax 5. Thus, the assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 11.82 crores is allowable both in the normal computation as well as in computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering the above factual details pointed out that the assessee case revolves around the fact that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

13. Now, what rule 8 postulates is the process of segregating the income derived from the sale of tea upon its computation as if it were income derived from business. Rule 8 creates a legal fiction, as a result of which the income which is derived from the sale of tea which is grown and manufactured by the assessee