PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

3) of the Act by order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Kolkata. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the said order, the assessee as well as the revenue preferred appeals before the learned tribunal and by the impugned order, the appeals filed

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

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

3,35,07,509, which falls under the ambit of Section 194C or other applicable provisions of the said Act. It is submitted that these payments cannot be treated as mere reimbursements because they were calculated as percentages of the appellant’s turnover without an exact or direct correlation to the actual expenses incurred by the payee companies

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

3 of 12 distinctly separate bank accounts, rule 8(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be invoked ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting an amount of Rs.1,17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read

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 12 distinctly separate bank accounts, rule 8(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be invoked ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting an amount of Rs.1,17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read

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 12 distinctly separate bank accounts, rule 8(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be invoked ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting an amount of Rs.1,17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read

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 12 distinctly separate bank accounts, rule 8(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be invoked ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting an amount of Rs.1,17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read

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, 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

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

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

disallowed the claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order

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

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

disallowance of deduction and adding back the sum being unclaimed credit balances unilaterally written back (credited to the profit and loss account). The said question was answered in the following terms:- The tribunal has followed its order for assessment year 1990-1991. That apart, in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sugauli Sugar Works Private Limited, the Supreme Court affirmed

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-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

3] read with section 153C of the Act. In the said order the Assessing Officer stated that the penalty proceedings under section 271[1][c] of the Act will be initiated separately. This leads to issuance of show cause notice dated 31.12.2009 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

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. PUSPA DEVI 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