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

3) read with Section 147 of the Act disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC and also making other additions on the ground

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

disallowances aggregating to Rs.128,48,02,479/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also enhanced the long term capital gain on sale of Chennai land by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Page 3

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

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

disallowed 20% of such payment 5 under Section 40A(3). However, the assessing officer was not in a position to actually

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, deduction under Section 801A, deduction under Section 80IC. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3

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 of reimbursement claims aggregating to Rs. 2,86,88,459 towards sales promotion, advertisement and marketing expenses and Rs. 48,19,050 towards handling, storing and collection expenses, under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The appellant is a unit of the Dey's Medical Stores Group

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4 vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE

Section 143(3) of the Act proposed to disallow the expenses which have been incurred by the assessee for the purchase

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified? 3 In ITAT/43/2021 the appellant has also raised

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

3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956)”. It does not mention “LIC Mutual Fund” which is a Trust established under the Indian Trust Act. Further, Sub- section (2) of Section 4A empowers the Central Government to specify, by notification in the official gazette, such other institutions as it may think fit to be a ‘public financial

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

3 disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,79,93,426/- in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating the finding of the assessing officer who disallowed 0.5% of average investment by applying rule 8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under Section

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

3 disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,79,93,426/- in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating the finding of the assessing officer who disallowed 0.5% of average investment by applying rule 8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. RANISATI HOSIERY PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

3) read with Section 263 of the Act the Assessing Officer records the various documents which were produced by the assessee 5 and also records that the details of documents were examined and the case was discussed and thereafter the Assessing Officer has recorded that the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers were verified from the documents produced

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)

Section 40A (3) and Rule 6DD (j). No disallowance could have been made in view of the provisions of S. 40A (3

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

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

3 residence by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under section 9(1) read with section 195 of the act? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- Heard Learned Counsel On Both Sides. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Low For Consideration :- I) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Transactions & Interest Expense Corresponding To Such Unexplained Loan Transactions By Holding That The Assessing Officer

disallowance under Section 14A only by considering only the investments which have yielded tax free dividend income during the financial year under consideration. So far as the first is concerned namely, whether the addition under Section 68 was justified, we find that the learned Tribunal has elaborately considered the factual position and relevant paragraph of the findings rendered

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

Section 92CD(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved

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

Section 92CD(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved

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

3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture

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

3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies to any undertaking or enterprise which has begun or begins to manufacture