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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

25 initiation of proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was repelled by the Judicial Committee in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, in the following words: "Therefore, a construction of Section 34 which requires a quasi- judicial enquiry to be held before the powers under the section can be operated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S T.M. INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Appeal is dismissed on the ground of low

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 15Th December, 2021 Appearance :-

disallowance of Rs.14,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission paid to the non- executive

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-1, KOLKATA vs. KARTICK BOSE

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

disallowance @25%, following Gujarat High Court decision in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. Though notice has been served on the respondent/assessee, none appears for the respondent. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration

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

disallowed the aforesaid amount of interest of Rs.9,75,16,996/- on unsecured debentures on the ground that it has not been paid within the stipulated period. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, the appellant/assessee filed an Appeal No.357/XII/Cir- 10/2011-12 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Kolkata which was partly allowed by order dated 19.8.2013. The appellant/assessee succeeded

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 142(1) of the Act. In response to such notices, the assessee’s authorised representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. With regard to the first issue, namely, the loss on derivative, the assessee claimed the loss arising from future option, loss on transaction entered on National Stock Exchange (NSE) as appeared in Form 10DB. As per the content

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

25,18,000/- 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-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-2, KOLKATA vs. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: January 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant/Revenue Mr. Sanjay Bbhowmick, Adv. Mr. A.K.Dey, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th March, 2017, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 297/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration:

25 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3609/2017) In ITAT/359/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA VS. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: January 3, 2022. [Via video conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SUMAN KUMAR

Bench: :

25,48,558/- Interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum till March 05, 2019 Rs.17,10,74,848/- Total Rs.45,36,23,406/- The plaintiff is also entitled to further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above sum till realisation thereof.” In the said suit the plaintiff has prayed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWAL

Bench: :

25,48,558/- Interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum till March 05, 2019 Rs.17,10,74,848/- Total Rs.45,36,23,406/- The plaintiff is also entitled to further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above sum till realisation thereof.” In the said suit the plaintiff has prayed

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 :-

Section 43B of the Act on account of provisions for leave encashment written back. The tribunal had re-appreciated the factual position and examined the consistent practice followed by the assessee in obtaining valuation report for ascertaining the incremental leave encashment liability and after taking note of the entire facts, came to the conclusion that the final statements drawn

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 37 of the Act. Further the assessing officer in regular assessment for the year 2003-2004, allowed the entire amount of expenses relating to prior period which crystallized during the relevant previous year. Further the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has allowed similar relief to the assessee for the assessment years

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FEEGRADE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

In the result, the substantial questions of law are answered against

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

25 OF 2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. FEEGRADE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : January 04, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. for the appellant Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv. for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue under Section

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

disallowing the bad debts on the ground that it was only a provision. In this regard, we were required to examine the factual position and we have done so, as could be seen from the balance sheet as at 31.3.2005 in the Current Assets, Loans and Advances column. It has been stated as follows : Sundry debtors (Stated to be good

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.45,17,787/- ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law by quashing the finding of the Assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 22Nd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For The 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 June 15, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (In Short The ‘Tribunal’) In M.A. No. 38/Kol/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “……………..….The Legal Issue That Arises Is Since The Initial Contribution Is Permitted To Be Deducted From The Income & Annual Contribution To A Pension Fund May Also Be Deducted From The Income Of The Employer, Would An Ad Hoc Or Lump Sum Interim Contribution, In Such Circumstances, Be Also Eligible For Deduction. ………………”

disallowance of a sum of Rs.9,14,70,000/- being contribution to the approved pension fund. The deduction scheme of the respondent/assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the ground that the allowability of deduction towards contribution to superannuation fund is governed by Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act read with Rules 87 and 88 of the Income