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

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

40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under Section 9(1) read with Section 195 of the act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance

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

40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under Section 9(1) read with Section 195 of the act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance

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

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

40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non 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

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 under Section 40(a) for payment made for export commission, disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made to foreign

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

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

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

section 40 A (9). The assessee pointed out that the said observation/findings of the Assessing Officer and CITA is factually incorrect and the tax auditor has not reported that the said sum has to be disallowed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. KOLKATA ASSAM ROADLINES PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th April, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “C”, Kolkata In

disallowance of Rs.99,60,000/- and Rs.6,48,98,583/- under section 40[a][ia] of the Act made by the Assessing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT CONSTRUCTION

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)(ia) is not called for. The CITA further records that the assessee had claimed that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS P LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 15, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Gupta, Adv. Mr. I. Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2022 The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 210 Days In Filing This Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

disallowance of Rs.7,85,93,661/- made under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO on account

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S T.M. INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Appeal is dismissed on the ground of low

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 15Th December, 2021 Appearance :-

disallowance of Rs.14,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission paid to the non- executive

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

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 8 vs. M/S PRICE WATER HOUSE

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

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

disallowed and a sum of Rs.3,34,56,529/- debited in profit and loss account as PWC Global Services charges is not allowable as the PWC Global Service has no direct or indirect nexus in running or functioning of the respondent/assessee’s business and also raised objection of incorrect computation of partners’ salary under Section 40

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KOLKATA vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed as

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the Indo-Japan treaty for avoidance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - IX, KOLKATA vs. M/S PARK INTERNATIONAL

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Appellant 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 25.6.2010 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005 & I.T.A. No.153/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. As Rightly Pointed Out By Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate Representing The Revenue/Appellant That The Tax Effect Involved In The Instant Appeal Is Rs.44,94,103/- Which Is Far Below The Threshold Limit As Would Be Evident From The Circular Issued By The C.B.D.T. This Appeal Was Admitted On May 03, 2011 & The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Have Been Framed By The Hon’Ble Division Bench:- (I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Confirming The Order Of Disallowance In Setting Side The Order Of Disallowance Or Labour Charges Of Security Guard By Totally Misconstruing The Provisions Contained In Section 40(A)(Ia) Read With Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961?

disallowance or labour charges of security guard by totally misconstruing the provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) read with

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Both the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority proceeded on the ipsi dixit of the petitioner as it claimed the depreciation of 15% in the relevant assessment year. Though the contention appears to be at a subsequent stage of a proceeding that he is entitled to depreciation to the extent

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Both the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority proceeded on the ipsi dixit of the petitioner as it claimed the depreciation of 15% in the relevant assessment year. Though the contention appears to be at a subsequent stage of a proceeding that he is entitled to depreciation to the extent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX vs. KARTICK CHANDRA DHAR

The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 2Nd March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant 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 08.4.2011 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 1595 /Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Dated September 28, 2011 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law : (I) ‘Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Decision Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Carriage Charge” Of Rs.21,83,220/- Under Section 40(A)(Ia) For Which Tds Has Not Been Deducted Under Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Deciding The Same Question At All? (Ii) Whether The Learned Tribunal Below Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Upholding The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Made Under The Head “Wages” In Respect Of Rs.10,44,230/- Without Deciding The Same Question At All ?

disallowance of expenses made under the head “carriage charge” of Rs.21,83,220/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for which