THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. M/S MODERN GEARS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the

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. Anil Kumar Dugar,Adv. Mr. R. Chatterjee,Adv. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. 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 13.4.2018 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 378/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1.12.2021 To Decide The Following Question Of Law: A) Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Erred In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(1) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? B) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Company Had Debited Rs.2,50,00,000/- On Account Of Scientific Research

disallowance of deduction under section 35(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? b) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS(P)LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. 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 29.11.2019 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 904/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Questions Of Law For Consideration. A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law By Ignoring The Facts That The Central Government Vide Notification No.79/2016 Dated 6.9.2016 Withdrew The Recognition Given To Grant Approval Under Section 35[1][Ii] Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of M/S. Herbicare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation W.E.F. 1.4.2007 ? B) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Was Justified In Deleting The

section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of M/s. Herbicare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation w.e.f. 1.4.2007 ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the 2 disallowance

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 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 35 of the Act is only Rs. 20,61,11,598/- and in the computation of total income excess debited amount of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- (i.e. Rs. 21,95,56,764 - Rs. 20,61,11,598) has not been added back to the total income. ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 4 of 10 (ii) That

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

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

disallowing any claim of the appellant until any material is brought on record.” After noting the above factual position, the tribunal examined the law on the subject and took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwallior) M.P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA vs. TAPATI SAHANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

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

disallowing any claim of the appellant until any material is brought on record.” After noting the above factual position, the tribunal examined the law on the subject and took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwallior) M.P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported

M/S. SHADAB ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-32(4) & ORS.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 31St July, 2025

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” - Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.114/Kol/2010 for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : November 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv. …For 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 Dated 30Th November, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Itat No. 1461/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- I) Whether The Assessee Was Entitled To Get Benefit Of Additional Depreciation @10% Amounting To Rs.1,35,64,743/- On The Assets Purchased & Put To Use On Latter Half Of The Financial Year 2012-13 Or Not ? Ii) Whether The Provisions Of Sec. 14A R.W. Rules, 1962 Could Be Invoked To Determine The Expenses Related To The Exempt Income Or Not ? We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Duly Assisted By Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The For The Respondent.

disallowance under Section 14A in terms of the remand order dated 21.02.2017. If the said amount is reckoned even without reference to the order the tax effect will be about Rs.10 lakhs. If that is so the revenue cannot pursue the said substantial question of law No. 2. With regard to the first substantial question of law we find that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 9Th January, 2026

disallowance of Rs. 4,73,50,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, made on account of statement provided by the auditor, director and founder of donee research institute? b) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee basing

SMT. CHETNA JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 20Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For Respondent

disallow in the original assessment, the debt owed by the assessee on the life insurance policies, cannot be deducted from the total wealth of the assessee. Therefore, the department contended that when the provisions contained in Sec 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act were not followed in the original assessment order made by the wealth tax officer, there

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 the Act on account of provisions for leave encashment written back. The tribunal had re-appreciated the factual position and examined the consistent practice followed by the assessee in obtaining valuation report for ascertaining the incremental leave encashment liability and after taking note of the entire facts, came to the conclusion that the final statements drawn

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

35,22,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 on account of ‘HRA Expenses Arrear’? ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 5 of 14 3. The assessee company filed its return of loss on 21.10.2003 disclosing the total loss of Rs. 97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside on

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its purported findings in that behalf, including that the Assessing Officer had recorded his dissatisfaction with regard to the appellant’s claim or that the appellant had not furnished any materials/evidence to show that no borrowed funds were utilised in making the investments, are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse

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, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 43B of the Act on account of provisions for leave encashment written back. The tribunal had re-appreciated the factual position and examined the consistent practice followed by the assessee in obtaining valuation report for ascertaining the incremental leave encashment liability and after taking note of the entire facts, came to the conclusion that the final statements drawn

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

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

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 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

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