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?”

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’], the assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the amount of interest paid is capital expenditure. After holding so, in final computation, the assessing officer took the net profit of Rs.45,95,97,148/- without allowing deduction of the aforesaid

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

disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction. After noting these facts, the CIT(A) had pointed out that no new material or facts came to the knowledge of the assessing officer after passing the original assessment order and also the first order under Section 154 of the Act while initiating reassessment under Section 148

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

section 148 of the Act as bad in law thereby deleting the addition made on the basis of disallowance of Rs.6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

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

148, the assessee filed revised return reporting loss of Rs. 83,923/-. There after notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the case was discussed with the authorised representative of the assessee. The assessee was called upon to furnish the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts with supporting evidence of expenses

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. 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th August, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Apellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. ….For Respondent

disallowed in Assessment year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 ? II) Whether the Learned Tribunal has erred in law and in fact in overlooking that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind in the assessment year 2010-11 which makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ?” The assessment for the year under consideration

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)

disallowances of expenses related to purchases from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which were "bogus" in nature ? c) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Priya Blue Industries P Ltd. Vs. ACIT

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)

disallowances of expenses related to purchases from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which were "bogus" in nature ? c) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Priya Blue Industries P Ltd. Vs. ACIT

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside on

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its purported findings in that behalf, including that the Assessing Officer had recorded his dissatisfaction with regard to the appellant’s claim or that the appellant had not furnished any materials/evidence to show that no borrowed funds were utilised in making the investments, are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

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

148/- should not be disallowed as bogus loss. Sufficient time was granted to the assessee to respond to the show-cause notice. The assessee though received the show-cause notice did not submit any reply and, therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded and completed the assessment by passing an order dated 16.12.2016 under Section

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads of income. As could be seen from the material papers, the assessee had produced all documents and details with regard to the names and addresses

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital