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 :

95 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/96/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. ITA/173/2007 INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 5th January, 2023 Appearance

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.5,80,23,623/- taking the entire investments held

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

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

95,659; and (iii) coordination charges to the tune of Rs.51,00,000/- In order to answer the substantial question of law, we proceed to deal with the three issues in seriatim. The assessee filed its return of income on 15th November, 2007 disclosing a total income of Rs.10,58,28,346/-. The case was processed under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KARTICK BOSE

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

disallow an estimated 5% of the inflated amount. Considering the factual position the tribunal held that the twin conditions required to be satisfied for invoking Section 263 of the Act was absent and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT was held to be bad in law. We note that the PCIT while invoking his power under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

Section 35 of the Act is only Rs. 20,61,11,598/- and in the computation of total income excess debited amount of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- (i.e. Rs. 21,95,56,764 - Rs. 20,61,11,598) has not been added back to the total income. ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 4 of 10 (ii) 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

disallowing the bad debts on the ground that it was only a provision. In this regard, we were required to examine the factual position and we have done so, as could be seen from the balance sheet as at 31.3.2005 in the Current Assets, Loans and Advances column. It has been stated as follows : Sundry debtors (Stated to be good

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 8 vs. M/S PRICE WATER HOUSE

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

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

disallowed and a sum of Rs.3,34,56,529/- debited in profit and loss account as PWC Global Services charges is not allowable as the PWC Global Service has no direct or indirect nexus in running or functioning of the respondent/assessee’s business and also raised objection of incorrect computation of partners’ salary under Section 40(b) of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM IDUSTRIES LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’], the assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the amount of interest paid is capital expenditure. After holding so, in final computation, the assessing officer took the net profit of Rs.45,95,97,148/- without allowing deduction of the aforesaid

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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 of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital