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

18. The object behind incorporation of non obstante clause in a section is to give the enacting part of such section an overriding effect either over all provisions of the Act or upon some provisions in case of conflict between statutory provisions. The object behind incorporation of the non obstante clause in the beginning of section

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

18 Explanation 7.-Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed

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

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

18 of 1964); (iv) the Life Insurance Corporation of India, established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956); (v) the Unit Trust of India, established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (vi) the Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited, a company formed and registered under this

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed as per Rs. 18,74,034/- Discussion above _______________ Net Profit Rs. 77,41,629/- Less: Accumulated loss Brough forward from Previous Year Rs. 2,88,71,747/- Loss to be carried forward for Rs.(-) 2,11,30,118/- Next year Tax, thereon NIL Assessed u/s. 143 (3) as above Please issue Demand Notice and copy of the order

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?”

disallowed the claimed revenue expenditure of Rs.28,89,56,652/- towards interest paid and accordingly did not add Rs.2,89,68,884/- in the income of the assessee. These facts are very much evident from paragraph 8 and the computation part of the original assessment order dated 27.03.2000. CIT(A) did not consider the jurisdictional issue of initiation of proceedings

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

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

18,000/- on account of ‘Current Liabilities’? i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,35,22,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 on account of ‘HRA Expenses Arrear’? ITAT

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: :

section 92BA and 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relevant judicial pronouncement of the jurisdictional High Court? D) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is erred in not appreciating that arm’s length price and fair market value are two different concepts and the role

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

disallowed by the assessing officer. With regard to the objection raised by the revenue to the relief granted by the CIT(A) while computation of book profit under Section 115JB, the tribunal rejected such objection raised by the revenue by rightly placing reliance on the decision of ITAT NO. 259 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 18

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

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

18,36,450/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on March 8, 2021, at an assessed income of Rs.39,76,74,478/-. This included treating the gain of Rs.12,97,56,648/- from the sale of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank that was purchased in June 2012 and held for nearly six years before

M/S MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED vs. C. I. T., KOLKATA - I AND ANR

The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 04, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mantha, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr. Ray, Adv. Ms. Sannoyee Chakraborty, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Samarjit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For The 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 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “E” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1786/Cal/1998 Dated 26Th November, 2022 For The Assessment Year 1995-96. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Failed To Consider The True & Proper Test For Determining On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Loss Of Rs.39,89,099/- Arising To The Petitioner / Assessee On Account Of Shares Held In Idcel Was A Revenue Loss & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That The Said Loss Was A Capital Loss & In Any Event A Notional Loss Not Allowable As A Permissible Deduction ?

disallowing the said claim on the ground that the expenditure was not incurred during the relevant year ? iii) Whether the expenditure incurred by the petitioner for shifting its factory from Entally to Salt Lake on the grounds of commercial expediency can be claimed as a permissible deduction in computing the income of the petitioner ? We have heard Mr. Joy Saha

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

18,740/-. The case was reopened by issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act wherein among other things, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee while preparing their return of income could not include profit and ITAT NO. 46 OF 2020 REPORTABLE Page 4 of 22 the loss of Shri Hanuman Jute Mills

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

disallowed, it would amount to concealment of income liable to penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee that as against the said decision in Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. leave has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in [2017 ] 18

C.I.T CENTRAL I vs. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

disallowance of Rs.17,05,646/- ? 2 ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT erred in law in upholding CIT(A)’s decision in directing the AO to deduct the amount of Rs.20,45,07,768/- from the net profit to arrive at book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance