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

8. The learned Tribunal by an order dated February 17, 2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee in part and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that no disallowance could be made under Sections

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

The appeals are allowed and substantial

Bench: Us In These Two Appeals.

Section 14A(2) read with rule 8D of the Rules could be invoked it was pointed out that the 8 assessing officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee suo motu disallowance

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 was deleted. That apart, we note that identical issue was raised before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. REI Agro passed in ITAT/161/2013, which was dismissed by judgment dated 23rd December, 2013. Thus, we find that the question no.5 has to be decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. With regard

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 was deleted. That apart, we note that identical issue was raised before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. REI Agro passed in ITAT/161/2013, which was dismissed by judgment dated 23rd December, 2013. Thus, we find that the question no.5 has to be decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. With regard

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

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowance on depreciation and thus the net profit came to 5 Rs.77,41,629/-. The loss carried forward by the assessee from previous year was Rs.2,88,71,747/- and after adjusting the aforesaid net profit, the loss carried forward for the next year was Rs.2,11,30,118/-. In the admitted facts of the case, the respondent assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II vs. M/S RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 1St March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain, 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 Common Order Dated 28Th July, 2010, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 505/Kol/2010 Along With Co. No.42/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Appeal Was Admitted On 19Th January, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law : “I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Treating The Profit On Sale Of Investment As Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income Since The Share Transactions Were Commercial In Nature ? Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Restricting The

disallowance of Rs,8,48,305/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.12,000/- ? We have

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings

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

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

disallowed the aforesaid amount of interest of Rs.9,75,16,996/- on unsecured debentures on the ground that it has not been paid within the stipulated period. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, the appellant/assessee filed an Appeal No.357/XII/Cir- 10/2011-12 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Kolkata which was partly allowed by order dated 19.8.2013. The appellant/assessee succeeded

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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

8 of 12 and gains as specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 80IC. Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC deals with the undertakings and enterprises to which Section 80IC would apply. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 80IC would be relevant to the cases on hand. The said clause (b) of Section 80IC(2) applies

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