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

8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under Section 14A ? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under Section 14A ? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

8D of income tax rules and made disallowance of expenses under section 14A? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 contrary

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

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

disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 should be restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is to be in relation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: This Court Against The Order Dated September 02, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata For The Assessment Years 2008-09 In I.T.A. No.780/Kol/2013. The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Are Sought To Be Raised: “(A) Whether The In The Facts & Circumstances, Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law & In Fact In Quashing The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Kolkata Passed Under Section

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,00,09,437/- computed as per provisions made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOL - III, KOL vs. M/S. MEENAKSHI TEA CO. LTD

Appeal is dismissed”

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

Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in this case? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench Kolkata erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(Appeals) – VIII, Kolkata in holding that the entire disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Rule 8D

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business income instead of capital in nature despite the settled proposition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th April, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 168 Days In Filing These Appeals.

Section 14A of the said Act was not applicable on the exempt income earned by the assessee ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to treat the transaction of sale and investment in equity and mutual funds as business income instead of capital in nature despite the settled proposition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ASIAN HOTELS EAST LTD

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

8D of the said Act or not ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhnwala and Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, namely, with regard to the deduction under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ASIAN HOTELS EAST LTD

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

8D of the said Act or not ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhnwala and Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, namely, with regard to the deduction under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ASIAN HOTELS EAST LTD

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

8D of the said Act or not ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhnwala and Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, namely, with regard to the deduction under

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

disallowed applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is bereft of particulars and devoid of reasons. The CIT(A) before whom the assessee challenged the said finding while dealing with ground no.(a) has extensively referred to the submission made by the assessee and has, in fact, extracted the entire contents