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 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 2 Organization donation made to the concern Organization i.e. Herbicure

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

3) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (PCIT) issued the show cause notice dated 15.03.2021 under Section 263 of the Act. Pointing out two issues:- (i) That in the Schedule 19 of TAR, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 21,95,56,764/- to the profit and loss account however the amount admissible under Section

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the claim of assessee regarding deduction under section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by following

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SUMAN KUMAR

Bench: :

3 by the letter dated February 14, 2018 immediately retracted from the aforesaid admissions and refuted the contents of the two documents relied upon by the appellants. The amounts mentioned in the letter dated February 9, 2018 as due and payable were obtained by coercion despite KBCN being willing to reconcile. The learned Counsel has argued that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWAL

Bench: :

3 by the letter dated February 14, 2018 immediately retracted from the aforesaid admissions and refuted the contents of the two documents relied upon by the appellants. The amounts mentioned in the letter dated February 9, 2018 as due and payable were obtained by coercion despite KBCN being willing to reconcile. The learned Counsel has argued that

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

3) SCC 207 (pragraphs 8, 10 & 11), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that issuance of notice to assessee under Section 274 is a consequence of prima facie satisfaction reached by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings regarding concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and held as follows: “8. The fact that notices

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

3 extracts of statements of brokers/mediators/and entry operators as reproduced in the assessment order I find that there remains no doubt that the management of these concerns were directly or indirectly engaged is misappropriating the funds and not utilizing the donation amounts entirely for research related activities. However the connivance of appellant in this scheme of arrangements between these concerns

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

3 extracts of statements of brokers/mediators/and entry operators as reproduced in the assessment order I find that there remains no doubt that the management of these concerns were directly or indirectly engaged is misappropriating the funds and not utilizing the donation amounts entirely for research related activities. However the connivance of appellant in this scheme of arrangements between these concerns

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH 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-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

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-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

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

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA 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 ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

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, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

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