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

37,48,429/- paid as commission to non residents by ignoring the fact that such commission are subject to tax in India under Section 9(1) read with Section 195 of the Income Tax Act? (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance

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

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1961’] and accordingly disallowed the expenditure so claimed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOKATA vs. M/S. L.G.W. LTD

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. Ananda Sen, Adv. …For 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 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 5Th October, 2018 In I.T.A. No.1786/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: - A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Has Misinterpreted Section 194C, More Particularly 194C (7) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 31A Of The Income

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act" 10. In the instant case also, as detailed above, the assessee company has not deducted the TDS of payment made to the transporters as per sub-section(6) of section 194(c). However, the details of the transporters have been filled-in in the TDS return, wherein

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground

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

disallowance treating the same as deductable expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. Further the assessing officer in regular assessment

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

disallowed either under Section 37(10 nor under 40A(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by same, the revenue preferred appeal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FEEGRADE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

In the result, the substantial questions of law are answered against

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

section 37 of the Income Tax Act on account of Railway Punitive charges. c) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

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

disallowability of all such expenses under the head ‘CSR’ as business expenditure through amendment of Section 37(1) of the Income

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

COMM OF INCOME TAX, (LARGE TAXPAYER UNITS), KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. We find no reasons to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal which in fact had followed the decision in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years which had attained finality. The second issue is with regard to the disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II. vs. M/S. V.N.ENTERPRISES LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 4Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv.

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act without 2 considering the fact that during the period there was no business carried on by the assessee ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance

RAMESH KUMAR NANGALIA KATRA (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER I.TAX - XVI, KOLKATA

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 9, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.. … For Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Respondent The Court:- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th September, 2003 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. 1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Misdirected Itself In Law In Not Appreciating That All The Necessary Particulars For Verification Of The Allowability Of The Claim Of Deductibility Of The Commission Payment In Computation Of Income Were Found Out & Verified In The Order Of The First Appellate Authority, That Is The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Claim For Deduction Of The Commission Payment Made By The Assessing Officer & Whether The Finding Arrived At Was Perverse ?

disallowance is without any material and/or evidence and is otherwise unreasonable and perverse merely because there were alleged discrepancies in the two letters arising out of typographical errors ? The present appeal was initially filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29th April, 2004, which is an order which was passed under Section

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

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

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 capital by the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION INDIA 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 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. 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(1)(iv) of the Act read with Rules 87 and 88 of the Income

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(1)(iv) of the Act read with Rules 87 and 88 of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Sapna Das, Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …For Respondent

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation as 50% of additional depreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant and machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days, ignoring the reasoned order of the A.O. and relying on the assessee’s submission ? ii) WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that forex loss

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.4,22,38,097/-. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, [CIT(A)] contending that the periphery development expenses which were incurred are 3 exclusively for the purpose of business and the same are fully supported by vouchers and receipts and they are necessary for the smooth conduct