COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of Rs.18,29,94,840/- paid as commission to and sitting fees to directors

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

29. For the reasons as aforesaid, this court is of the considered view that the first appellate authority was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer by involving the provisions of Section

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

29. Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added or disallowed

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 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

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

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

29 to 43D have been considered and no further addition on account of section 43D is required. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 43B are not required to be considered. In this regard, the Appellate authority took note of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of 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

29,46,358/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 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

M/S. BINANI ZINC LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, KOLKATA & ANR.

The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: :

disallowing the expenditure of Rs.3,35,29,347/- incurred by the assessee for preparation of feasibility study report in earlier years, but written off during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 2004-05 since the proposed project 2 was abandoned when the Tribunal itself has found that the expenses were revenue expenditure ? ii) Whether interest can be charged

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961: Rs.4,89,43,299/-. 4 iv) Penalty amount not disallowed by the assessee while computing its income: Rs.41,047/-. Total Rs.9,29

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX vs. KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.4.2011 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 1595 /Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Dated September 28, 2011 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law : (I) ‘Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Decision Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Carriage Charge” Of Rs.21,83,220/- Under Section 40(A)(Ia) For Which Tds Has Not Been Deducted Under Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Deciding The Same Question At All? (Ii) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Wages” In Respect Of Rs.10,44,230/- Without Deciding The Same Question At All ?

Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without deciding the same question at all? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of expenses made under the head “wages” in respect of Rs.10,44,230/- without deciding the same question at all ? 2 (iii) Whether

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

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

29, 2019 to Rs.36,18,36,450/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on March 8, 2021, at an assessed income of Rs.39,76,74,478/-. This included treating the gain of Rs.12,97,56,648/- from the sale of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank that was purchased in June 2012 and held

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

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

29, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A- Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/614/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “i. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in law to delete the addition

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, KOLKATA 4.KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED

The appeal stands disposed of on

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

29 of 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA Vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : January 04, 2022. Appearance: Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Madhu Jana, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Goel

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