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

section 14A(2) read with rule 8D of the Rules could be invoked it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo motu disallowance

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

section 14A(2) read with rule 8D of the Rules could be invoked it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo motu disallowance

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

section 14A(2) read with rule 8D of the Rules could be invoked it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo motu disallowance

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

section 14A(2) read with rule 8D of the Rules could be invoked it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo motu disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- Heard Learned Counsel On Both Sides. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Low For Consideration :- I) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Transactions & Interest Expense Corresponding To Such Unexplained Loan Transactions By Holding That The Assessing Officer

2 did not make any independent inquiry whereas the Assessing Officer had made independent enquiry by issuing summons/notices ? ii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

2(42C) of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,84,00,909/- being 60% of the aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircrafts without considering that the aircrafts were also used for personal purpose

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contrary to the provisions of the section? (iv) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

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

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench Kolkata erred in law in holding that disallowance under Section 14A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,99,56,281/- being 60% of the aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircrafts without considering that the aircrafts were also

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,99,56,281/- being 60% of the aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircrafts without considering that the aircrafts were also

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

2 different concepts and the role of Transfer Pricing Officer is limited to determination of arm’s length price ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law as well as on facts by not appreciating that in case where the monetary threshold as per section 92BA

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

disallowing the expenditure by invoking Section 14A of the Act, read with Rule 80P(2), 80P(2)(a)(i) and 3(i) and Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

disallowing the expenditure by invoking Section 14A of the Act, read with Rule 80P(2), 80P(2)(a)(i) and 3(i) and Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II vs. M/S RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LIMITED

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, Adv. … For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28Th July, 2010, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 505/Kol/2010 Along With Co. No.42/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Appeal Was Admitted On 19Th January, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law : “I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Treating The Profit On Sale Of Investment As Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income Since The Share Transactions Were Commercial In Nature ? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Restricting The

2 disallowance of Rs,8,48,305/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.12,000/- ? We have

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that the treatment for accounting of MODVAT credit applied by the appellant was in accordance with the approved method

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that the treatment for accounting of MODVAT credit applied by the appellant was in accordance with the approved method

THE PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX- 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S UMANG COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/297/2017) fails and

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

2 “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances and points of law involved in this case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified quashing the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax without considering the fact that the assessment order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? b) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : November 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Itat No. 1461/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether The Assessee Was Entitled To Get Benefit Of Additional Depreciation @10% Amounting To Rs.1,35,64,743/- On The Assets Purchased & Put To Use On Latter Half Of The Financial Year 2012-13 Or Not ? Ii) Whether The Provisions Of Sec. 14A R.W. Rules, 1962 Could Be Invoked To Determine The Expenses Related To The Exempt Income Or Not ? We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Duly Assisted By Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The For The Respondent.

disallowance under Section 14A in terms of the remand order dated 21.02.2017. If the said amount is reckoned even without reference to the order the tax effect will be about Rs.10 lakhs. If that is so the revenue cannot pursue the said substantial question of law No. 2