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

disallowance made by the assessing officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act only on the ground that the said amount was not debited to the profit and loss account by totally misreading the provisions laid down under Section 40(a)(ia) of the said Act. 13. On the issue regarding computation of long term capital gains

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- Heard Learned Counsel On Both Sides. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Low For Consideration :- I) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Transactions & Interest Expense Corresponding To Such Unexplained Loan Transactions By Holding That The Assessing Officer

22 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/28/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA VS M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26TH February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Pratyush

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 or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings

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, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S.CHANDIMATA MANAGEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved 5 by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the appellate authority, the assessee contended that the expenditure was made for purchase of soil from the third parties and the assessee entered into agreement to supply soil

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RABINDRA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 16Th June, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Amit Shaw, Adv. Ms. Suman Sahani, Adv. …Respondent

disallowance made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of bogus share 2 application/allotment money amounting to Rs.27,22

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA vs. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD, C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO.

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

Section 2(22)(e) was raised on the basis that the shareholding was more than 10%; whereas in the case before us, the shareholding is restricted to 5.27%. Therefore, there was no question of applicability of any deemed dividend. In so far as the second question is concerned, he pointed out that the payment of arrear provident fund

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOL - 1 vs. M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LIMITED

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

Section 2(22)(e) was raised on the basis that the shareholding was more than 10%; whereas in the case before us, the shareholding is restricted to 5.27%. Therefore, there was no question of applicability of any deemed dividend. In so far as the second question is concerned, he pointed out that the payment of arrear provident fund

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

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.

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

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

22,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 on account of ‘HRA Expenses Arrear’? ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 5 of 14 3. The assessee company filed its return of loss on 21.10.2003 disclosing the total loss of Rs. 97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly

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

22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the annual value of a property of which the assessee is the owner shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “Income from house property”. Section 23 (2) clarifies that where the property consists of a house or part of a house which is in the occupation of the owner

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

22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the annual value of a property of which the assessee is the owner shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “Income from house property”. Section 23 (2) clarifies that where the property consists of a house or part of a house which is in the occupation of the owner

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

22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the annual value of a property of which the assessee is the owner shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “Income from house property”. Section 23 (2) clarifies that where the property consists of a house or part of a house which is in the occupation of the owner

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

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 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

Section 142 (1) of the Act was placed on record. Therefore, revenue cannot take a stand that the assessee has not furnished details of the outstanding creditors. That apart, the assessee also furnished details of payments made to creditors subsequent to 31.03.2001 which was produced to show that the liabilities continue to exist