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

65,057/-. The assessing authority of the said bank 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, 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 Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

65,75,000 Revised net profit for the purpose of section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, 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 Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

65,75,000 Revised net profit for the purpose of section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

65,106/- losses on disposal of property, plant and equipment. 3. The Principal CIT invoked Section 263 on February 27, 2023, holding the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests due to the shares' classification as stock-in-trade, excess set-off and disallowable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

65,120/-. Subsequently revised return was filed on 27.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 1054,14,38,420/- and the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. In response to such notices and the queries which were raised the assessee submitted documents and on certain discrepancies which were found

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

RAMESH KUMAR NANGALIA KATRA (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER I.TAX - XVI, KOLKATA

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 9, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.. … For Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, 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 Order Dated 24Th September, 2003 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. 1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Misdirected Itself In Law In Not Appreciating That All The Necessary Particulars For Verification Of The Allowability Of The Claim Of Deductibility Of The Commission Payment In Computation Of Income Were Found Out & Verified In The Order Of The First Appellate Authority, That Is The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Claim For Deduction Of The Commission Payment Made By The Assessing Officer & Whether The Finding Arrived At Was Perverse ?

Section 131 of the Act and statements were recorded from the Karta of the assessee who had in clear terms stated above the circumstances under which the commission was paid to various companies for not only the purpose of securing the materials but also for rendering the services of recovering payments and facilitating the business activities of the assessee. However

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 as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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 as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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 as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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 as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

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 as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance as made by the Commissioner is based on third party information said to have been gathered by the alleged investigation and the same could not have been relied upon without independent verification either by the assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus