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

disallowance under Section 14A only by considering only the investments which have yielded tax free dividend income during the financial year under consideration. So far as the first is concerned namely, whether the addition under Section 68 was justified, we find that the learned Tribunal has elaborately considered the factual position and relevant paragraph of the findings rendered

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

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 to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture

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

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 to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture

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

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 to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture

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

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 to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture

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

14A read with R.8D of the rules is bound to record his satisfaction to the correctness of the claim of disallowance in respect of exempted dividend income. We have perused the assessment order dated 29th January 2014 under Section 143(3

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 Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the first three issues we find that the tribunal has made a thorough factual exercise and took note of the documents and details noted by the CIT(A) and granted relief. With regard to the commission paid to four entities abroad

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

3 disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,79,93,426/- in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating the finding of the assessing officer who disallowed 0.5% of average investment by applying rule 8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under Section 14A

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

3 disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,79,93,426/- in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating the finding of the assessing officer who disallowed 0.5% of average investment by applying rule 8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses 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

3 residence by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under section 9(1) read with section 195 of the act? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.84,57,149/- under section 40(a)(i) on account

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 :

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 of accounting duly approved by the ICAI and has been regularly followed by the appellant and also has been accepted by the revenue and without even considering

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 :

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 of accounting duly approved by the ICAI and has been regularly followed by the appellant and also has been accepted by the revenue and without even considering

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The tribunal tested the correctness of the said order and has pointed out as to how the assessing officer has furnished the detailed questionnaire to the assessee, received his response, perused all the records and has recorded the factual finding. The tribunal re-examined the same and found that the assessing officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ISG TRADERS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Moloy Dhar, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Moloy Dhar, Advocate Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 559 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Explanation Offered Is Not Fully Satisfactory, Since We Have Suggested That The Appeal Itslef Can Be Heard & Submissions Were Heard On The Merits Of The Matter We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th June, 2020 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata In Ita No. 1610/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.

Section 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not to a higher figure. The following finding rendered by the learned Tribunal is as hereinunder: “The AO has computed the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D at a sum of Rs.5,80,23,623/- taking the entire investments held

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , KOLKATA 2 vs. M/S HOOGLY MILLS CO LTD

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax

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

disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is to be in relation to the income which does not form a part of the total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration the investment which has given rise to this income which does

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: This Court Against The Order Dated September 02, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2008-09 In I.T.A. No.780/Kol/2013. The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Are Sought To Be Raised: “(A) Whether The In The Facts & Circumstances, Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law & In Fact In Quashing The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Kolkata Passed Under Section

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,00,09,437/- computed as per provisions made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?” 2. The learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that error was committed during the course of assessment proceedings while carrying