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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The CIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) any amount payable to a contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIIB 3 and if such tax is not being deducted during the previous year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

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. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. 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 22Nd October 2020 Passed In

section 263 passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax as bad in law thereby deleting the addition of Rs.18,88,58,130/0 made on the basis of disallowance

C.I.T CENTRAL I vs. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

disallowance of Rs.17,05,646/- ? 2 ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT erred in law in upholding CIT(A)’s decision in directing the AO to deduct the amount of Rs.20,45,07,768/- from the net profit to arrive at book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Income

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)

88 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 2 of 24 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.) 1. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated September 23, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal

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 115JB of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering the above factual details pointed out that the assessee case revolves around the fact that out of its loan of Rs. 13.00 crores advanced for the purpose of its business, Rs. 11.82 crores had turned bad and though investment was initially propelled by business expediency and was subsequently thrust

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 22Nd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For The 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 June 15, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (In Short The ‘Tribunal’) In M.A. No. 38/Kol/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “……………..….The Legal Issue That Arises Is Since The Initial Contribution Is Permitted To Be Deducted From The Income & Annual Contribution To A Pension Fund May Also Be Deducted From The Income Of The Employer, Would An Ad Hoc Or Lump Sum Interim Contribution, In Such Circumstances, Be Also Eligible For Deduction. ………………”

disallowance of a sum of Rs.9,14,70,000/- being contribution to the approved pension fund. The deduction scheme of the respondent/assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the ground that the allowability of deduction towards contribution to superannuation fund is governed by Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act read with Rules 87 and 88

COMM OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 22Nd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For The 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 June 15, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (In Short The ‘Tribunal’) In M.A. No. 38/Kol/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 1414/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “……………..….The Legal Issue That Arises Is Since The Initial Contribution Is Permitted To Be Deducted From The Income & Annual Contribution To A Pension Fund May Also Be Deducted From The Income Of The Employer, Would An Ad Hoc Or Lump Sum Interim Contribution, In Such Circumstances, Be Also Eligible For Deduction. ………………”

disallowance of a sum of Rs.9,14,70,000/- being contribution to the approved pension fund. The deduction scheme of the respondent/assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the ground that the allowability of deduction towards contribution to superannuation fund is governed by Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act read with Rules 87 and 88

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

disallowance only to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchase. With regard to the aspect of the assessing officer as to making inquiries, the PCIT referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

disallowance only to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchase. With regard to the aspect of the assessing officer as to making inquiries, the PCIT referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

disallowed as per Rs. 18,74,034/- Discussion above _______________ Net Profit Rs. 77,41,629/- Less: Accumulated loss Brough forward from Previous Year Rs. 2,88,71,747/- Loss to be carried forward for Rs.(-) 2,11,30,118/- Next year Tax, thereon NIL Assessed u/s. 143 (3) as above Please issue Demand Notice and copy of the order

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

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. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

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 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. SWATI BAJAJ

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