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

48,429/- paid as commission to non residents by ignoring the fact that such commission are subject to tax in India under Section 9(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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

disallowance on account of upfront fees, paid to ICICI Bank. We have perused the finding recorded by the tribunal and we find that the tribunal has elaborately discussed the facts before affirming the view taking by CIT(A). We find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration. The last ground was with regard

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 48(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act. The above decision was referred to in the case

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

Section 143(3) of the Act by passing an order dated December 30, 2010. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowances aggregating to Rs.128,48

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II vs. M/S RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LIMITED

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, Adv. … For Respondent. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28Th July, 2010, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 505/Kol/2010 Along With Co. No.42/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Appeal Was Admitted On 19Th January, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law : “I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Treating The Profit On Sale Of Investment As Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income Since The Share Transactions Were Commercial In Nature ? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Restricting The

disallowance of Rs,8,48,305/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.12,000/- ? We have

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

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)

disallowance can be made. Similar issue arose for consideration in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Noble & Hewitt (I) (P.) Ltd., [2008] 166 taxmann.com 48 (Del.) wherein it was held that when the assessee has not even claimed any deduction on the ground of service tax and has not debited the amount to its profits and loss account

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

48,84,39,000/- respectively already claimed u/s 32 of the Act as not double claim of depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. M/S S. N. SODHANI HUF

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 31St October 2022. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant / Revenue. Though Notice Was Sent To The Respondent/Assessee The Same Was Returned Unclaimed. There Is A Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal. Since The Legal Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By A Earlier Decision Of This Court In Favour Of The Revenue We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 14th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “SMC” Bench, Kolakata in I.T.A. No. 1566/Mkol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:- (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. RAGHVENDRA MOHTA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 5Th May, 2025.

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.12.2016 purely on technical grounds and deleting the additions of Rs. 42,27,500/- made u/s. 68 and Rs.1,48,657/- made U/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act by disallowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax ACt, 1961 3 is not applicable on this issue without assigning any findings as regards the inapplicability of the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Prithu

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly the same stands dismissed without

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th May, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

section 2[47] of the IT Act, 1961 ? f. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the decisions of the CIT[A] wherein it has been held that calculation of disallowance u/s 14A can be done considering only those investment which yielded exempt income during 4 the year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

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

Sections 143(1) and 142(1) were served on the assessee calling for particulars. In compliance with the same the authorised representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and explained the return and submitted the details called for. Upon perusal of the accounts and details, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is a NBFC involved in trading

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

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. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

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-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

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