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 :

Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not call for any 13 interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law (e) is answered against the revenue. 15. The next substantial question of law is with regard to advance of Rs.1,49,00,000/- given to 6256 farmers in earlier years which were written off. In this regard, the CIT granted relief

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S.CHANDIMATA MANAGEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) any amount payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIIB 3 and if such tax is not being deducted during the previous year

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

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 , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

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

139[1] but has shown the same in the return in response to the notice under section 153C cannot be said to be voluntary. With regard to the alleged defect in the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, either on the ground that the relevant portions have not been clearly indicated or that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

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

139(1) of the Act.” After noting the factual issue, the Tribunal also considered as to whether the CIT was justified in observing as to whether the assessing officer failed to conduct any enquiry. The Tribunal considered the paper book filed by the assessee and found that the assessing officer had issued a questionnaire dated 11th November, 2014 along with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA 2 No.757/Kol/2022 to ITA No.759/Kol/2022 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since the facts and circumstances in all the three appeals are identical and the correctness

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA 2 No.757/Kol/2022 to ITA No.759/Kol/2022 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since the facts and circumstances in all the three appeals are identical and the correctness

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus