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

3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute

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

3) of Section 200 referring to Section 31(A) (4)(vi). It is submitted that the deductor at the time of preparing statement of tax, deductor shall furnish particulars of amount paid or credited on which tax was not deducted in view of the compliance of provision of Sub-Section (6) of Section 194C by the payee. Section

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4) of section 92C, then, the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL-II,KOLKATA vs. BHARTIYA HOTELS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4 The learned third member pointed out that the word “payment” has to be read in conjunction with the expression “in a sum exceeding 20,000 rupees” as contained in Section 40A(3) of the Act. That apart, the nature of transaction done by the assessee was also examined on facts and it has not been disputed by the revenue

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 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 :

3 building was a capital receipt without examining the nature, specific terms and conditions of each of the contracts? (e) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in presuming that the investment in tax freе securities were made out of own interest free fund and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs.21,16,23,729/- of interest in terms

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

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-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

3 and 4 are rejected. So far as question no.5 is concerned, the same did not arise for the assessment year 2006-07. The issue was whether the disallowance made by the assessing officer under Section

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

3 and 4 are rejected. So far as question no.5 is concerned, the same did not arise for the assessment year 2006-07. The issue was whether the disallowance made by the assessing officer under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4 vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE

3 appear to have returned by the postal department with the endorsement ‘not known’. Therefore, the assessing officer disbelieved the transaction and treated those documents to be bogus transaction and, accordingly, disallowed the said claim and accordingly, added back the said claim while computing the assessment. The assessee carried out the matter on appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

3 In ITAT/43/2021 the appellant has also raised identical substantial questions of law for consideration. Thus, we proceed to hear out and decide the aforesaid appeals by passing a common judgment and order. We have heard Mr. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee (Paul) counsel for the appellant and Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned senior standing counsel

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. RANISATI HOSIERY PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

4 examine as to the correctness to such findings recorded by the PCIT. Identical finding was rendered by the PCIT in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1 Vs. Rani Sati Agro Tech(P.) Ltd. reported in [2024] 161 taxmann. com 124(Calcutta) and this Court held that such finding rendered by the PCIT was erroneous

MA/S SKYSCRAPER PROJECTS PVT LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

4 done in the earlier assessment years. However, in the computation of the tax liability, the Assessing Officer added liability under section 43B and passed the order dated 29.3.2015 under section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) contending that the addition made under section

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

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

3 residence by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under section 9(1) read with section 195 of the act? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.84,57,149/- under section 40(a)(i) on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT) KOLKATA vs. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

3 of 12 distinctly separate bank accounts, rule 8(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be invoked ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting an amount of Rs.1,17,99,000/- /Rs.1,03,70,000/- added by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act read