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

Section 147 of the Act disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and also making other additions on the ground that

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 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

147 read with section 143(3) of the Act by and which the claim made by the assessee towards the purchases amounting to Rs.18,41,476/- was treated as bogus expenditure under section 69C of the Act and 2% of the said bogus expenditure, i.e., Rs.36,829/- as commission which was made from some undisclosed sources was also disallowed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 13Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Ajay Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Hiranyak Gangopadhyay, Adv. …For Respondent

disallowance of Rs.6,92,90,000/- claimed on account of Provision of VAT ? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Tribunal erred in holding that in the reason recorded for reopening there is no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee in AY 2008-2009 to truly and fully disclose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN vs. M/S. THE BURDWAN CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/63/2008. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/837/2008.. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal (Ita/63/2008) Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th June, 2007 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.1279 & 1280/Kol/2007 Years 2003-04 & 2004-05.

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(a)(i) relying on the said judgment of the Supreme Court. Secondly, we also find from the order of the CIT(A) that the learned CIT, Burdwan vide order passed u/s. 264 dated 18.3.2002 has held that voluntary reserves have been invested by the assessee co-operative bank in NABARD, IFCI

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. DEEPA AGARWAL

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

disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.13,59,649/- overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.13,59,649/- and claim bogus exemption? 3 We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA IV

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 26, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ajoy Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Hiranmay Gangopadhyay, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. Ajoy Gaggar, Learned Standing Counsel With Mr. Gangopadhyay, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th July, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.1533/Kol/2015 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted On August 22, 2019 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (A) For That The Tribunal Was Not Justified In Law In Directing Disallowance Of 1% Of The Appellant’S Dividend Income Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) When The Appellant’S Case Was That No Expenditure Was Incurred By It In Relation To The Dividend Income & Its Purported Findings In That Behalf Are Arbitrary, Unreasonable & Perverse.

147 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/131/2019 HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA IV BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : SEPTEMBER 26, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ajoy Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Hiranmay Gangopadhyay, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …for respondent

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. M/S B L TAK AND SONS HUF

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss made by the assessing officer in the order u/s. 143(3) even though the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the lead case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Swati Bajaj squarely covers the issue of bogus Short Term Capital Loss/Long Term Capital Gain from sale of penny stocks

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR DAMANI

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

147 and also communicated the same to the assessee? b. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT had erred in law and on facts by deleting the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer whereas the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the lead case of Pr. CIT –vs- Smt. Swati Bajaj squarely covers this part i.e. Long Term

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. SICPA INDIA LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

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

Sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as bad in law in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 in deleting the disallowance of Rs.45,17,787/- ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law by quashing the finding of the Assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth 4 Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

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-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR 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 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

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

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

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