DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

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

disallowance was warranted in a scenario where the recipients of these payments had duly accounted for and paid taxes on the amounts they received, thereby raising questions about the timing and manner of TDS deduction. 23. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) in conjunction with Section 194C

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

27, 2011 under the provisions of Section 154 of the said Act and the total income was revised at Rs.172,19,20,000/-. In the order passed under Section 143(3)/154 dated 27.01.2011 the disallowance

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

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 2 KOLKATA vs. ISG TRADERS LTD

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. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Moloy Dhar, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Moloy Dhar, Advocate Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 559 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Explanation Offered Is Not Fully Satisfactory, Since We Have Suggested That The Appeal Itslef Can Be Heard & Submissions Were Heard On The Merits Of The Matter We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th June, 2020 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata In Ita No. 1610/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.

Section 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not to a higher figure. The following finding rendered by the learned Tribunal is as hereinunder: “The AO has computed the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D at a sum of Rs.5,80,23,623/- taking the entire investments held

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

27. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgments advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section

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

27. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgments advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section

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

27. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgments advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section

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

27. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgments advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section

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

disallowed either under Section 37(10 nor under 40A(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by same, the revenue preferred appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal took into consideration the fact that certain documents were placed for the first time before the CIT(A) and after stating about what are irrelevant considerations held that evidence regarding the nature of service rendered

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

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

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

Section 263 on February 27, 2023, holding the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests due to the shares' classification as stock-in-trade, excess set-off and disallowable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL-II,KOLKATA vs. BHARTIYA HOTELS LTD

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

27 (Ker.). With regard to the decision in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh singh vs. ITO reported in 191 ITR 667 (SC) which was referred to by the learned judicial member, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee, in the said case, admittedly payments were made in cash exceeding a sum of Rs.2500

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

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that

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

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that

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

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that

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

27. It is submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is unsustainable and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice the Commissioner had pre-decided the issue. Furthermore, the allegation against the assessing officer is that