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

19,20,000/-. In the order passed under Section 143(3)/154 dated 27.01.2011 the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restricted

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

19, 2022. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. : These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate 2 Tribunal, Kolkata (Tribunal). There were four orders, which are subject matter of challenge before us in these two appeals. ITA/148/2018 is directed against

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

19,077/- was received without there 3 being any supply of material to the party concerned, i.e. Sree Metallik Limited. On the basis of the aforesaid entries, Sri Ramesh Prasad Sao declared an undisclosed income of Rs.4,30,00,000/- including the aforesaid amount, in the return of income filed under Section 153A for the assessment year 2007-08. Under

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

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

Section 43(5) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed the same. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the transactions made through the stock broker had been held to be sham transactions when the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue relating to derivative loss and those findings will also be equally applicable to the issue relating to the loss in shares

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

disallowance under section 14A was not correct and it will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In any event, the Assessing Officer will have to record its satisfaction to the said effect. . . . . . . . . . We also take note of the decision of this Court

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

disallowance under section 14A was not correct and it will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In any event, the Assessing Officer will have to record its satisfaction to the said effect. . . . . . . . . . We also take note of the decision of this Court

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

disallowance under section 14A was not correct and it will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In any event, the Assessing Officer will have to record its satisfaction to the said effect. . . . . . . . . . We also take note of the decision of this Court

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

disallowance under section 14A was not correct and it will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In any event, the Assessing Officer will have to record its satisfaction to the said effect. . . . . . . . . . We also take note of the decision of this Court

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

19,97,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 57,13,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 respectively on account of ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’? h) 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

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. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd October 2020 Passed In

19 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/125/2022 IA NO: GA/2/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, KOLKATA VS. M/s. MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : SEPTEMBER 12, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … for appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan

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 as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The aforesaid order was challenged by the assessee by filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated March 02, 2016 passed in ITA No.390/Kol/2013 accepted the aforesaid appeal and set aside the order dated March 30, 2013 passed by the Commissioner under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

19,295/- as commission paid outside the books of 3 account under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15, when such claim was fraudulent and not to be allowed and the assessee has paid Commission outside books for availing the bogus Long Term Capital Gain in the case

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

19 of TAR, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 21,95,56,764/- to the profit and loss account however the amount admissible under Section 35 of the Act is only Rs. 20,61,11,598/- and in the computation of total income excess debited amount

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads of income. As could be seen from the material papers, the assessee had produced all documents and details with regard to the names and addresses

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