PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

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

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

1) was issued to the assessee and the case was discussed by the Assessing Officer with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessment was completed under 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

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

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the tribunal. The facts which are necessary for the consideration of the relief sought for in the writ petition could be stated as follows:- 2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of jewellery and ornaments and selling the same within

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

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 :

1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if investments in securities were made out of common funds and the assessee had available, non-interest bearing funds larger than the investments in tax-free securities, disallowance under Section 14A could not be made. Furthermore, there was no statutory provision which obligated the assessee to maintain separate accounts which

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

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 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

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

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 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

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-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

1) read with section 195 of the act? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law deleting the 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

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 of 13 8. The learned Tribunal by an order dated February 17, 2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that no disallowance could be made under Sections 40(a)(i)/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the issue of capital gains

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

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), Kolkata Bench "B", dated ITAT 160 of 2024 -2- November 29, 2023, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1703/Kol/2018, relating to the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant challenges the Tribunal's partial confirmation of the Assessing Officer's disallowance

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

Bench: :

1, Rs. 1 crore for the distributor no. 2 and Rs. 1 crore for the employee. In my view, the above amounts are required to be secured in favour of the petitioner by the respondents respectively. The respondents shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to secure the above amounts as indicated above, and upon such security being given

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

Bench: :

1, Rs. 1 crore for the distributor no. 2 and Rs. 1 crore for the employee. In my view, the above amounts are required to be secured in favour of the petitioner by the respondents respectively. The respondents shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to secure the above amounts as indicated above, and upon such security being given

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

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS