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

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

50,000/- has to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 8Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Sapna Das, Adv. Mr. S. Das, Adv. …For Respondent

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation as 50% of additional depreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant and machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days, ignoring the reasoned order of the A.O. and relying on the assessee’s submission ? ii) WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that forex loss

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACO CORPORATION INDIA PVT 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 : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar,Adv. Mr. R. Chatterjee,Adv. 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 13.4.2018 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 378/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1.12.2021 To Decide The Following Question Of Law: A) Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Erred In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(1) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? B) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Company Had Debited Rs.2,50,00,000/- On Account Of Scientific Research

disallowance of deduction under section 35(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? b) Whether

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 KOLKATA vs. M/S MODERN GEARS PVT 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 : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar,Adv. Mr. R. Chatterjee,Adv. 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 13.4.2018 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] In I.T.A. No. 378/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1.12.2021 To Decide The Following Question Of Law: A) Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Erred In Law By Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(1) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? B) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Company Had Debited Rs.2,50,00,000/- On Account Of Scientific Research

disallowance of deduction under section 35(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4,37,50,000/-? b) Whether

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

50,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively against ‘IICM Contribution’ claimed under section 40A(9) of the Act? c) 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. KANYA KUMARI PROPERTIES LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj & The Hon’Ble Justice Uday Kumar Date : 9Th January, 2026

disallowance of Rs. 4,73,50,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, made on account of statement provided by the auditor, director and founder of donee research institute? b) WHETHER in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee basing

M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

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

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed and thus disallowing 50

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 27Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv., ….For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th February 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.(Ss).A. No. 09 (Kol) Of 2017 Relating To The A.Y. 2010-2011.. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- (I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Provision For Allowing Additional Depreciation Of Remaining 50% Is Allowable In The Subsequent Year I.E. Assessment Year 2010-11, Although The Statute Allowed The Same W.E.F. 01.04.2016 ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred On Facts By Not Appreciating The Legal Provisions That Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Remaining Additional

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed in Assessment year 2010-2011, ignoring the fact that the proviso for allowing the remaining 50% of allowable additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year, came into the statute with effect from 01.04.2016 and thus, it was not there for assessment year 2010-2011 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the paid or credited payment to the transporters exceeding Rs.20,000/- for single transaction and Rs.50,000/- for aggregate payment. It is clearly seen that the assessee credited payment exceeding 20,000/- or 50,000/- where the assessee was liable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground

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

Section 37 of the Act. Further the assessing officer in regular assessment for the year 2003-2004, allowed the entire amount of expenses relating to prior period which crystallized during the relevant previous year. Further the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) has allowed similar relief to the assessee for the assessment years

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

50,79,850.06/-. 4. The assessee had furnished the details pertaining to the purchase of units of mutual fund, giving the date of purchase, record date, dividend received, dates of sale and the loss on sales of the units of mutual fund. The ITA NO. 79 OF 2010 Page 3 of 12 Assessing Officer referring to Section

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

disallowed in processing the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central 1, Kolkata. The assessee contended that the assessing officer was erred while assessing insurance commission income for the assessment year 2005-06 but not allowed the credit of TDS of Rs.3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

section 92BA and 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relevant judicial pronouncement of the jurisdictional High Court? D) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is erred in not appreciating that arm’s length price and fair market value are two different concepts and the role

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

NAGREEKA EXPORTS LIMITED vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA & ORS.

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 27Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Murarka, Advocate Mr. S.D. Verma, Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate Mr. Vivek Murarka, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Advocate Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate … For The Respondents 1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Murarka, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Sri S. Roychowdhury, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondents. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 04.02.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Tribunal Is Erroneous As Being Perverse In Reversing The Order Of

disallowance of Rs.1 lakh under the head ‘bad debts’. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the issue raised in the cross objection. By the impugned order dated 21.08.2009, the appeal of the revenue on the issue of assessee’s claim of replacement cost as revenue expenditure was allowed by the ITAT and the order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SUMAN KUMAR

Bench: :

50 the provisions to advance the cause of justice. The interpretation of such an omnibus provision should not be crippled by a myopic vision as the provision is intended to embrace all situations not specifically conferred on the court by the code. In Padam Sen v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1961 SC 218 the Apex Court had observed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWAL

Bench: :

50 the provisions to advance the cause of justice. The interpretation of such an omnibus provision should not be crippled by a myopic vision as the provision is intended to embrace all situations not specifically conferred on the court by the code. In Padam Sen v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1961 SC 218 the Apex Court had observed