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 under Section 40(a)(i) and (ia) of the Act would be made. The aforesaid decisions also support the view of this Court on the issue as to applicability of the provisions of Section 40a(ia) of the Act. 28

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

28. Language of the Explanation 5A to Section 271(1) of the Act, 1961 is plain and unambiguous. It applies to cases where, in the course of search initiated under Section 132 or after the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of any asset as mentioned in clauses (i) or (ii) representing

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

28 Taxmann.com 119]. In the said decision the High Court of Gujarat held that once conditions of proviso to Section 194(C)(7) are satisfied, liability of payer to deduct taxes at source would cease and consequently, disallowance

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

COMM OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

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

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

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

28, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, in ITA No.548/Kol/2003 for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal was admitted on 25th April, 2005 on the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal that there was omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly

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

28,346/-. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and, subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued under Section 143(2) and 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

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

disallowed under section 40 A (9) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer and the CITA failed to take note of the vital facts that IICM is not a firm/trust/association/company set up for the general welfare of the employees. Further, the amount paid by holding company to IICM and subsequent payment made by the assessee company represent fee for participation

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-2, KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

28 read with Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee could claim enhanced depreciation after the introduction of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books. Both the learned counsel

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

disallowance of deduction and adding back the sum being unclaimed credit balances unilaterally written back (credited to the profit and loss account). The said question was answered in the following terms:- The tribunal has followed its order for assessment year 1990-1991. That apart, in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Sugauli Sugar Works Private Limited, the Supreme Court affirmed

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 of interest is not warranted, under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for investments made in tax- free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to the assessee-banks in those situations where, interest-free own funds available with the assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned

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 of interest is not warranted, under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for investments made in tax- free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to the assessee-banks in those situations where, interest-free own funds available with the assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned

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 of interest is not warranted, under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for investments made in tax- free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to the assessee-banks in those situations where, interest-free own funds available with the assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned

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 of interest is not warranted, under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for investments made in tax- free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to the assessee-banks in those situations where, interest-free own funds available with the assessee, exceeded their investments. With this conclusion, we unhesitatingly agree with the view taken by the learned

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

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

disallowable capital loss. He set aside the order. Thereafter, the assessee appealed to the ITAT "B" Bench, Kolkata, which, by order dated October 23, 2024, upheld the AO's view in line with the CBDT Instruction dated May 2, 2016. Being aggrieved by the order, the revenue preferred the present appeals under Section 260A. 4. Learned counsel appearing