PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M.COMMERCIAL PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th February, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … For Respondent

68 of the Act and whether the 4 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] and the Tribunal were justified in deleting the said addition. The second question pertains to whether Section 14A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. TRUE MAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 25Th April, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. V. N. Dubey, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Arani Guha, Adv. Mr. Tanay Ghosh, Adv. …For Respondent

14A of 2 the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving due weightage to the unjustified payment of high premium to acquire shares of a seemingly unprospective company and doubtful creditworthiness of share subscriber without considering the ratio laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., reported in (2019) 103 taxmann.com

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 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 and the role

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

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

14A? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition on account of interest amounting to Rs.3,80,69,705/- being 12% of interest free advances given to subsidiary companies for non business purpose based on the presumption that those advances were made by the assessee

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