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

Section 40(a)(ia), holding that the appellant had failed to deduct TDS on payments made to the related entities and thus, these payments were disallowable as expenses in the appellant’s hands. 7

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 :

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, deduction under Section 801A, deduction under Section 80IC. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Kolkata. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the said

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping the objective behind section 14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the words “in relation to the income” that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle

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 made by the assessing officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was justified. On perusing paragraph 7

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 made by the assessing officer under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules was justified. On perusing paragraph 7

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 said Act. The first appellate authority by an order dated March 30, 2011 allowed the said appeal in part. By the said order the first appellate authority held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance of Rs.72,89,71,972/- and directed deletion of the amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer

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)(i) of Rs.3,06,20,256/- paid as commission to non-resident by considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned

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

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

7 of 1948); (iii) the Industrial Development Bank of India, established under section 3 of the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964 (18 of 1964); (iv) the Life Insurance Corporation of India, established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956); (v) the Unit Trust of India, established under section 3 of the Unit

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

Section 94(7) of the Act, as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act with effect from 01.04.2005 stated that the assessee acquired the units within a period of 3 months prior to the record date and sold them within a period of 9 months after the record date, therefore, disallowed

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

7.-Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed

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 deduction under Section 80HHC and also making other additions on the ground that the assessee has wrongly interpreted the said Section. As against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 15.11.1999, the revenue had earlier filed appeal to the learned Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated 20.8.2002. It appears that as against the order passed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT) KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

7. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit to the respondent/assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. The revenue’s contention is that the assessee having not undertaken any substantial expansion as required under Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act, they cannot claim exemption under Section 80IC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT) KOLKATA vs. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

7. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit to the respondent/assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. The revenue’s contention is that the assessee having not undertaken any substantial expansion as required under Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act, they cannot claim exemption under Section 80IC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT), KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I) LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

7. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit to the respondent/assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. The revenue’s contention is that the assessee having not undertaken any substantial expansion as required under Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act, they cannot claim exemption under Section 80IC

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S SUVARNA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD

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

7. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the benefit to the respondent/assessee under Section 80IC of the Act. The revenue’s contention is that the assessee having not undertaken any substantial expansion as required under Section 80IC(2)(b) of the Act, they cannot claim exemption under Section 80IC

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 by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the appellate authority, the assessee contended that the expenditure was made for purchase of soil from the third parties and the assessee entered into agreement to supply soil