PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 22Nd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated June 15, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (In Short The ‘Tribunal’) In M.A. No. 38/Kol/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “……………..….The Legal Issue That Arises Is Since The Initial Contribution Is Permitted To Be Deducted From The Income & Annual Contribution To A Pension Fund May Also Be Deducted From The Income Of The Employer, Would An Ad Hoc Or Lump Sum Interim Contribution, In Such Circumstances, Be Also Eligible For Deduction. ………………”

disallowance of a sum of Rs.9,14,70,000/- being contribution to the approved pension fund. The deduction scheme of the respondent/assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the ground that the allowability of deduction towards contribution to superannuation fund is governed by Section 36

COMM OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 22Nd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court:- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated June 15, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (In Short The ‘Tribunal’) In M.A. No. 38/Kol/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “……………..….The Legal Issue That Arises Is Since The Initial Contribution Is Permitted To Be Deducted From The Income & Annual Contribution To A Pension Fund May Also Be Deducted From The Income Of The Employer, Would An Ad Hoc Or Lump Sum Interim Contribution, In Such Circumstances, Be Also Eligible For Deduction. ………………”

disallowance of a sum of Rs.9,14,70,000/- being contribution to the approved pension fund. The deduction scheme of the respondent/assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the ground that the allowability of deduction towards contribution to superannuation fund is governed by Section 36

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of on

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: January 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant/Revenue Mr. Sanjay Bbhowmick, Adv. Mr. A.K.Dey, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th March, 2017, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 297/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration:

disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of bad debt written off without considering that the case of the assessee is not covered under the provisions of section 36

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

disallowance for delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund violating the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, KOL vs. M/S SURYA ALLOYS INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal (ITAT No

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the CIT(A) in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of its order. The CIT(A) noted that for the investments made in the earlier year their department has accepted the assessee’s explanation that the investments were made out of own funds and there

M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

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

disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the 100% depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA 3 vs. M/S FAIRLUCK COMMERCIAL CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata is right in law and fact in holding that the borrowings as made by the respondent/Assessee were made for the purpose of lending business and once it was proved that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

36(1)(iii) and Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Despite full disclosure of facts regarding loans given by the assessee to its subsidiary companies and source of funds, supported by documentary evidences, the assessing officer made addition in the income of the assessee on the presumption that the loan was given out of the borrowed

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

36(1)(vii) of the Act? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee could claim enhanced depreciation after the introduction of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA vs. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD, C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO.

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

36(i)(v)(a) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund due to non-deposit of contribution within the date to the appropriate authority. Mr. Khaitan, appearing for the assessee submitted that the first question is unmeritorious. In the case of Hooghly Mills Project Ltd. the point of applicability

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOL - 1 vs. M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LIMITED

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

36(i)(v)(a) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund due to non- deposit of contribution within the date to the appropriate authority. Mr. Khaitan, appearing for the assessee submitted that the first question is unmeritorious. In the case of Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd. the point of applicability

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

36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 143(2) was issued on 07.10.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued on 31.12.2004, the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on considering

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?”

disallowing the sum of Rs.28,89,56,562/- paid as interest on borrowed capital for acquisition of fixed assets under Section 36

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

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

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 for nearly six years before

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

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

disallowed, it would amount to concealment of income liable to penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee that as against the said decision in Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. leave has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in [2017 ] 18 taxmann.com 36