PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,06,20,256/- paid as commission to non-resident by considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOKATA vs. M/S. L.G.W. LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, 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 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 5Th October, 2018 In I.T.A. No.1786/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: - A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Has Misinterpreted Section 194C, More Particularly 194C (7) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 31A Of The Income

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act.” 14. Even assuming that the assessee had not furnished the particulars as required under Sub-Section (7) of Section 194C of the Act in the prescribed form, the maximum that could be done is to impose a fine of Rs.200/- for every day of such non compliance

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 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

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.

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 and Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income

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

26,91,71,670/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of closing stock of coal? d) 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

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LIMITED vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA & ORS.

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 27Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Murarka, Advocate Mr. S.D. Verma, Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate Mr. Vivek Murarka, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Advocate Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate … For The Respondents 1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Murarka, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Sri S. Roychowdhury, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondents. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 04.02.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Tribunal Is Erroneous As Being Perverse In Reversing The Order Of

26,67,804/-, which the assessee reduced by Rs.56,06,159/- representing the sale proceeds of old frames and thus, claimed balance sum of Rs.1,70,61,645/- as revenue expenditure as cost of replacement of machinery i.e. ring frames. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the appellant assessee holding that it is not a revenue expenditure under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KOLKATA vs. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 25th May, 2016 , 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1348/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised for the following substantial question of law for consideration: “(a) Whether on the facts

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

disallowing the loss arising on the sale of units to the extent of dividend income. 5. The assessee while supporting the order passed by the CIT(A) submitted that the gestation period of 3 months as per Section 94(7)(b) of the Act, had expired before the amendment was made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 in respect

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

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. GITESH 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

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 CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

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-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

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-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA 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