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 :

1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if investments in securities were made out of common funds and the assessee had available, non-interest bearing funds larger than the investments in tax-free securities, disallowance under Section 14A could not be made. Furthermore, there was no statutory provision which obligated the assessee to maintain separate accounts which

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was passed by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced below: “1. The assessee company submitted its return of income on 16.11.2004 declaring total income at NIL which was duly processed U/s. 143 (1). The case was selected for scrutiny as per guidelines of C.B.D.T. and notice

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

1) was issued to the assessee and the case was discussed by the Assessing Officer with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads

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-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

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

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) is at the instance of the revenue and is directed against an order dated February 17, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata (for short “the Tribunal”) Page 2 of 13 in ITA no. 806/Kol/11 and ITA no. 872/Kol/2011 both

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

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 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

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

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 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

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-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

1) read with section 195 of the act? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law deleting the disallowance of Rs.84,57,149/- under section 40(a)(i) on account of advertisement publicity and sales which was reasonable considering the fact that the documents in support of such expenses were

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

The appeal is dismissed and substantial questions of law are answered

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

disallowed the claim solely on the ground that the assessee had not proved that the debts are in fact become bad. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (XI), Kolkata, and CIT(A) by an order dated 21st February 2008 accepted the legal position as also the fact that the conditions stipulated under

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

1. Heard Sri J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Bagaria, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Smt. Smita Das De, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent/revenue. 2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 11.11.2021 on the following substantial questions of law : “i) Whether LIC Mutual Fund can be regarded as Public

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

1% for collection expenses. Both the Cosmetics and Medicine Manufacturing Companies treated these reimbursements as income in their taxable accounts and deducted tax at source (TDS), wherever applicable, compliant with provisions of the said Act. 6. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer disallowed these reimbursed expenses under Section 40(a)(ia), holding that the appellant had failed to deduct

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

5 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/78/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SUNITA GOYAL IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/80/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 VERSUS RANJIKA GUPTA ITAT/85/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA VERSUS SRI VIKASH GOEL ITAT/87/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

5 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/78/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SUNITA GOYAL IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/80/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 VERSUS RANJIKA GUPTA ITAT/85/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA VERSUS SRI VIKASH GOEL ITAT/87/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

5 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/78/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SUNITA GOYAL IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/80/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 VERSUS RANJIKA GUPTA ITAT/85/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA VERSUS SRI VIKASH GOEL ITAT/87/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

5 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/78/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SUNITA GOYAL IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/80/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 VERSUS RANJIKA GUPTA ITAT/85/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA VERSUS SRI VIKASH GOEL ITAT/87/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

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

5 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/78/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SUNITA GOYAL IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/80/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 VERSUS RANJIKA GUPTA ITAT/85/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA VERSUS SRI VIKASH GOEL ITAT/87/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS