PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

disallowance of Rs.21,16,23,729/- of interest in terms of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D (2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules 1962, without considering the fact that the assessee was having interest bearing borrowings which were used for mixed purposes including investment and without appreciating the effect of the clarificatory amendment

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 under Section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,37,48,429/- paid as commission to non residents without considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4

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 under Section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,37,48,429/- paid as commission to non residents without considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4

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

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. 5. In the appeal filed by the appellant assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the aforesaid issue. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed ITA No.1474/KOL/2008 [Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

37,000/-. The assessee in its return of income for the assessment ITAT NO. 259 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 3 of 18 year under consideration claimed Rs. 4,08,23,000/- as prior paid adjustment and in the details thereof, the same had been stated as general expenditure in nature. The assessing officer called upon the assessee to explain

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

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

disallowed the claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order

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

4 Thus, considering the normal human behaviour and applying the test of probabilities, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the entire transaction is sham leading to a bogus loss. After taking note of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the transactions with the said stock broker during the year under consideration

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

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 of the VRS expenses in terms of Section 35DDA

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

disallowance as the overloading charges is nothing but penalty as per Provision of Section 73 of the Indian Railway Act 1989. d) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Net Present Value (NPV) paid to Forest department is a non-recovering outlaw whose benefit was/would be consumed for several years and it was one time/lump sum payment

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

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

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Finance Act, 2013 ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case that why all such expenses shall not be disallowed by treating it as Capital Expenditure as it mostly caters to creation of new assets of company like hospitals, schools, drinking & sanitation facilities for its employees ? We have

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-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-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA 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-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-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