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.

153. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted under Section 14A of the Act for investment

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 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

disallowable capital loss. He set aside the order. Thereafter, the assessee appealed to the ITAT "B" Bench, Kolkata, which, by order dated October 23, 2024, upheld the AO's view in line with the CBDT Instruction dated May 2, 2016. Being aggrieved by the order, the revenue preferred the present appeals under Section 260A. 4. Learned counsel appearing

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

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -3

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

disallowance made by the assessing officer be deleted. On a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), it restored the decision of the assessing officer by holding that “the income in question is taxable under the head “income from house property”. The reasons in support of this decision were sought to be advanced in paragraph

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

disallowance made by the assessing officer be deleted. On a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), it restored the decision of the assessing officer by holding that “the income in question is taxable under the head “income from house property”. The reasons in support of this decision were sought to be advanced in paragraph

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2 vs. M/S. EXPERT JEWELLERS PVT LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

disallowance made by the assessing officer be deleted. On a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), it restored the decision of the assessing officer by holding that “the income in question is taxable under the head “income from house property”. The reasons in support of this decision were sought to be advanced in paragraph

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed