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

disallowance of Rs.1,30,77,646/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents

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 of Rs.1,30,77,646/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

30,00,000/- including the aforesaid amount, in the return of income filed under Section 153A for the assessment year 2007-08. Under invoicing of sales was also admitted by the respondent/assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts that were offered to tax as part of disclosure under section 132(4) of the Act. (Accordingly

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: This Court Against The Order Dated September 02, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2008-09 In I.T.A. No.780/Kol/2013. The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Are Sought To Be Raised: “(A) Whether The In The Facts & Circumstances, Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law & In Fact In Quashing The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Kolkata Passed Under Section

Section 263 of the Act. Vide order dated January 30, 2013, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of 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

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, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

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

Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of provision for leave encashment written back and Rs.256.32 lacs on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, a contingent liability and its purported finding in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench

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

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 on derivative, the assessee claimed the loss arising from future option, loss on transaction entered on National Stock Exchange (NSE) as appeared in Form 10DB. As per the content

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

disallowance of Rs.1 lakh under the head ‘bad debts’. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the issue raised in the cross objection. By the impugned order dated 21.08.2009, the appeal of the revenue on the issue of assessee’s claim of replacement cost as revenue expenditure was allowed by the ITAT and the order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. KOLKATA ASSAM ROADLINES PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th April, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “C”, Kolkata In

30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. … for the appellant The Court : This appeal by the Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 5th April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “C”, Kolkata in ITA No. 1524/Kol/2014 for assessment year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S M C NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED

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

Section 30(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior Counsel 3 assisted by Mr. A. K. Dey and Mr. Sanjay Bhoumik, learned Advocates for the respondent. The first issue which falls for consideration

M/S MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED vs. C. I. T., KOLKATA - I AND ANR

The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 04, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mantha, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr. Ray, Adv. Ms. Sannoyee Chakraborty, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Samarjit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “E” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1786/Cal/1998 Dated 26Th November, 2022 For The Assessment Year 1995-96. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Failed To Consider The True & Proper Test For Determining On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Loss Of Rs.39,89,099/- Arising To The Petitioner / Assessee On Account Of Shares Held In Idcel Was A Revenue Loss & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Holding That The Said Loss Was A Capital Loss & In Any Event A Notional Loss Not Allowable As A Permissible Deduction ?

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “E” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA no. 1786/CAL/1998 dated 26th November, 2022 for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether the learned Tribunal failed to consider

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

30) of Section 10, is not includible in the total income.” Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal submitted that fringe benefit tax is an additional income tax as would appear from Section 115WA. Therefore, the rules applicable for the purpose of assessing income tax would also be applicable for the purpose of arriving at a valuation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LTD.

In the result the appeals in so far as the assessment

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10 without considering the merit of disallowance of depreciation claim @ 30

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. MAMTA CHORARIA

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th August, 2025

disallowed the loss of Rs. 39,24,838/- incurred from commodities (MCX) and made addition Rs. 39,78,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of bogus profits from sale of derivatives/stock options through coordinated, premeditated and synchoronized transactions without going into the merits of the case ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads of income. As could be seen from the material papers, the assessee had produced all documents and details with regard to the names and addresses

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S D R STEEL CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Appeal are allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th May, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ...For The 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 March 30, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata In

Section 260A of the Income Tax |Act, 1961(the Act) is directed against the order dated March 30, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata in ITA No. 64/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (a) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances