PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

17, 2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that no disallowance could be made under Sections

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

17, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance: Mr. Suniti Chatterjee, Advocate … for the appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) challenging the order dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2.- Where the source of any receipt, deposit, outgoing or investment in any assessment year is claimed by any person

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?”

17 to the balance sheet, under the heading “Capital Work in Progress”, the assessee also showed interest paid/payable Rs.28,89,56,752/-. The amount of work in progress was reduced by the assessee by Rs.2,89,68,884/- as interest received. The respondent assessee claimed the aforesaid interest paid/payable Rs.28,89,56,752/- as revenue expenditure. He added the aforesaid

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

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

17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 80D(ii) of the Rules?” 4. The decision rendered by the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 had been followed by the tribunal for two other assessment years namely, assessment year 2010-11, which was the subject

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

17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 80D(ii) of the Rules?” 4. The decision rendered by the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 had been followed by the tribunal for two other assessment years namely, assessment year 2010-11, which was the subject

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

17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 80D(ii) of the Rules?” 4. The decision rendered by the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 had been followed by the tribunal for two other assessment years namely, assessment year 2010-11, which was the subject

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

17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 80D(ii) of the Rules?” 4. The decision rendered by the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 had been followed by the tribunal for two other assessment years namely, assessment year 2010-11, which was the subject

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

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-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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

disallowance on account of upfront fees, paid to ICICI Bank. We have perused the finding recorded by the tribunal and we find that the tribunal has elaborately discussed the facts before affirming the view taking by CIT(A). We find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration. The last ground was with regard

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 2 KOLKATA vs. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground

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

Section 115JB of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering the above factual details pointed out that the assessee case revolves around the fact that out of its loan of Rs. 13.00 crores advanced for the purpose of its business, Rs. 11.82 crores had turned bad and though investment was initially propelled by business expediency and was subsequently thrust

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

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

section 274 of the Act, either on the ground that the relevant portions have not been clearly indicated or that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has not been properly made was not canvassed before the CIT[A]. This contention appears to have been canvassed for the first time before the Tribunal. It may be true that the Tribunal being

SRI SUBHASH CHAND JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, XV, KOLKATA

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

17 individuals to whom payments were made were sub-contractors and that the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable are perverse ? (iii) Whether and in any event, on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 49(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force