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

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

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

disallowance voluntarily made by the assessee was not acceptable. The assessee further contended that sub-section (2) of Section 14A does not enable the Assessing Officer to apply the method prescribed under rule 8D without determining in the first instance the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having 5

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 PUNE vs. M/S NALCO WATER INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY NLC NALCO INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’, in brevity) and is directed against the order dated 5th April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.2111/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: a) Whether on the facts

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

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 13,68,50,370/- paid as commission to and sitting fees to directors of the 5

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

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 by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4 We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue

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

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 by the assessee before the assessing officer? 4 We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. V. Angidi Chattiar, 24 Shah, J., speaking for the court, while dealing with Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, observed: "The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

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

Section 43(5) of the Act and accordingly, disallowed the same. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the transactions made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KARTICK BOSE

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

disallowance at 5% of Rs.84,90,060/-. After the assessment was completed, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Kolkata (PCIT) exercised his power under 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

disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction. After noting these facts, the CIT(A) had pointed out that no new material or facts came to the knowledge of the assessing officer after passing the original assessment order and also the first order under Section 154 of the Act while initiating reassessment under Section 148 and he relied upon the same

SMT. CHETNA JAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 20Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For Respondent

Section 5(1)(6)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, omission to disallow in the original assessment, the debt owed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

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

Section 14A on the ground that the disallowance under the said provision cannot exceed the exempt income. We find no error in approach of the tribunal. Thus, we are satisfied that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 4 With

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

5. As stated by learned counsel for the respondent assessee, a notice dated 23.03.2010 under Section 147/148 of the Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06 was issued by the assessing officer to the respondent assessee to reopen the aforesaid assessment. After reopening, the assessing officer passed reassessment order dated 21.12.2010 assessing 4 the respondent assessee to tax. Aggrieved

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as hereunder:- 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP) entered into an agreement with Kakinada Sea Port Limited (KSPL) vide concession agreement dated 19.03.1999 for operation of existing berth, develop and operate

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as hereunder:- 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP) entered into an agreement with Kakinada Sea Port Limited (KSPL) vide concession agreement dated 19.03.1999 for operation of existing berth, develop and operate

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved 5

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

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

disallowed 20% of such payment 5 under Section 40A(3). However, the assessing officer was not in a position to actually