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: :

80-IA read with 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN vs. M/S. THE BURDWAN CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/63/2008. Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Ita/837/2008.. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal (Ita/63/2008) Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th June, 2007 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.1279 & 1280/Kol/2007 Years 2003-04 & 2004-05.

disallowance under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, and Ms. Smita Das De, learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act to Rs.50 lakhs instead of Rs.20,74,80,418/- and for reduction

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act to Rs.50 lakhs instead of Rs.20,74,80,418/- and for reduction

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

80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States. (1) * * * * * * * * * (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces

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

80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States. (1) * * * * * * * * * (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces

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

80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States. (1) * * * * * * * * * (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces

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

80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States. (1) * * * * * * * * * (2) This section applies to any undertaking or enterprise,- (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) which has begun or begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing, specified in the Fourteenth Schedule or commences any operation specified in that Schedule, or which manufactures or produces

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , KOLKATA 2 vs. M/S HOOGLY MILLS CO LTD

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

80 days in filing the instant appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay 2 application and, therefore, we are exercising discretion to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application being

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RABINDRA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 16Th June, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Amit Shaw, Adv. Ms. Suman Sahani, Adv. …Respondent

disallowance made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that assessee had discharged its onus to prove identity and creditworthiness of the share subscriber without considering that identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transaction is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument as held

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. ISG TRADERS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Moloy Dhar, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Moloy Dhar, Advocate Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 559 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Explanation Offered Is Not Fully Satisfactory, Since We Have Suggested That The Appeal Itslef Can Be Heard & Submissions Were Heard On The Merits Of The Matter We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th June, 2020 Passed By The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata In Ita No. 1610/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.

Section 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not to a higher figure. The following finding rendered by the learned Tribunal is as hereinunder: “The AO has computed the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D at a sum of Rs.5,80

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

80,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 47,28,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 61,31,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of ‘Grant to sports ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 4 of 14 and recreation’ being non-incidental to the business of the assessee? f) Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

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

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 of income. As could be seen from the material papers, the assessee had produced all documents and details with regard to the names and addresses

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed on the

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1032/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “’(i) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ZULU MERCHANDISE PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed the order passed by

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

disallowed and added to the total income. The reply given by the assessee is absolutely vague except to state that they had sold the shares in the normal course of business through shares brokers in Demat Form in recognized stock exchanges and payment were made through banking channel. 11. Identical issue was considered in the case of Swati Bajaj where

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL-2,KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING CO.PVT LTD.

In the result, we find that question no

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

Section 14A for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 29.12.2011 held that the assessee company during the year was having investment of Rs.1,04,00,504/- income which would not form part of the total income of the assessee and that the interest has also been paid during the year. Accordingly