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

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA IV

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 26, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ajoy Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Hiranmay Gangopadhyay, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. Ajoy Gaggar, Learned Standing Counsel With Mr. Gangopadhyay, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th July, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.1533/Kol/2015 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted On August 22, 2019 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (A) For That The Tribunal Was Not Justified In Law In Directing Disallowance Of 1% Of The Appellant’S Dividend Income Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) When The Appellant’S Case Was That No Expenditure Was Incurred By It In Relation To The Dividend Income & Its Purported Findings In That Behalf Are Arbitrary, Unreasonable & Perverse.

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) when the appellant’s case was that no expenditure was incurred by it in relation to the dividend income and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. 2 (b) For that the Tribunal failed to consider the appellant’s case that

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

46,358/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 26,91,71,670/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of closing stock of coal? d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN vs. M/S. THE BURDWAN CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/63/2008. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/837/2008.. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal (Ita/63/2008) Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th June, 2007 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.1279 & 1280/Kol/2007 Years 2003-04 & 2004-05.

46 ITA/63/2008 IA No.GA/1/2008 (Old No.GA/332/2008) And ITA/837/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN -Versus- M/S. BURDWAN CENTRAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee

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

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.19,00,87,300/- shown under the head “Mine Development Expenditure” without considering the applicability of Section 35E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench Kolkata erred in law by holding that the Expenditure aggregating to Rs.62

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

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

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

Section 142 (1) of the Act was placed on record. Therefore, revenue cannot take a stand that the assessee has not furnished details of the outstanding creditors. That apart, the assessee also furnished details of payments made to creditors subsequent to 31.03.2001 which was produced to show that the liabilities continue to exist

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA vs. SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed the various expenses as these were not verified in response to the notice issue under section 133(6) of the Act. But the Id. CIT(A) has 7 treated the income of the assessee @ 8% of the gross receipt. So the Revenue is in appeal before us. Now the question before us arises for adjudication is as to whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS(P)LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ……For Respondent. 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 29.11.2019 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 904/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Questions Of Law For Consideration. A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law By Ignoring The Facts That The Central Government Vide Notification No.79/2016 Dated 6.9.2016 Withdrew The Recognition Given To Grant Approval Under Section 35[1][Ii] Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of M/S. Herbicare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation W.E.F. 1.4.2007 ? B) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Was Justified In Deleting The

46 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/120/2021 IA NO:GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA VS. TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS [P] LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : AUGUST 12, 2022. Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …for appellant

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

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

disallowing the loss arising on the sale of units to the extent of dividend income. 5. The assessee while supporting the order passed by the CIT(A) submitted that the gestation period of 3 months as per Section 94(7)(b) of the Act, had expired before the amendment was made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 in respect

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

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-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR 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 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

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 ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH 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-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-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 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-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