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.” 14. Even assuming that the assessee had not furnished the particulars as required under Sub-Section (7) of Section 194C of the Act in the prescribed form, the maximum that could be done is to impose a fine of Rs.200/- for every day of such non compliance

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 under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then, the amount so added or disallowed

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

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

disallowance of reimbursement claims aggregating to Rs. 2,86,88,459 towards sales promotion, advertisement and marketing expenses and Rs. 48,19,050 towards handling, storing and collection expenses, under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The appellant is a unit of the Dey's Medical Stores Group

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 :

4) TMI 663. Against the said decision of the learned Tribunal, the revenue preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay but the question relating to disallowance under Section

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

Section 14A, as per formula provided in rule 8D of the Rules. The assessee had stated that they had voluntarily made a disallowance of Rs.10 lakhs. However, on going through the order of assessment dated 31.12.2010 4

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

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

4. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by passing an order dated December 30, 2010. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowances

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

4 assessing officer to increase the deduction under Section 80HHC on the basis of the total income determined in the assessment. The assessing officer after discussing the case with the assessee passed an order on 19.9.1997 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) allowing the enhanced deduction under Section 80HHC as per computation filed by the assessee in their

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

disallowance of Rs.84,57,149/- under section 40(a)(i) on account of advertisement publicity and sales which was reasonable considering the fact that the documents in support of such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4(a) to Section 43B provides that “public financial institutions” shall have the meaning assigned to it under 11 Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 is reproduced below:- “[4A. Public financial institutions. – (1) Each of the financial institutions specified in this sub- section shall be regarded, for the purposes of this

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

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

Section 14A on the ground that the disallowance under the said provision cannot exceed the exempt income. We find no error in approach of the tribunal. Thus, we are satisfied that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 4

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads of income. As could be seen from the material papers, the assessee had produced all documents and details with regard to the names and addresses

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

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

Section 14A of the Act. The assessing officer merely states that the same is not convincing. This is not the manner in which suo motu disallowance made by the assessee should be decided for its correctness nor can it be treated to be recording of the satisfaction of the assessing officer. This aspect of the mater was rightly taken note

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was passed by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced below: “1. The assessee company submitted its return of income on 16.11.2004 declaring total income at NIL which was duly processed

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, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S.CHANDIMATA MANAGEMENT PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) any amount payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIIB 3 and if such tax is not being deducted during the previous year

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 :

disallowance under section 14A to 20 lacs instead of Rs.8,08,62,345/- without observing the facts and findings of the Assessing officer and as such the same is perverse or not?” Since the revenue as well as the assessee are aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this