PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LTD

In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the substantial

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

Section 80IA of the Act can accordingly be claimed only on the basis of the rates charged for sale of power by the generating companies to the distribution companies. With certain other observations, the TPO substituted ALP determined by the assessee in the Transfer Pricing Study Report for the power transferred from the two eligible units with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its relinquishment by agreement dated 11.05.2005 followed by consent terms/award by the sole Arbitrator dated 11th May, 2005 would constitute transfer of capital asset within the meaning the Section 2 (47) of the Act, 1961. ii) The aforesaid transfer being transfer of a long term capital asset for Rs.32.42 crores resulted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. DIGVIJAY VINIMAY PVT LTD

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

14,840/- under Section 115JB. During the relevant financial year, the petitioner had entered into certain international transactions with its associated enterprises. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

price of the shares sold and transferred by the Bagri Group of respondents to BulakidasBhaiya and his nominees within a period of 7 days' from date of the handing over of the share scrips and properly executed transfer deeds by the sellers to the purchasers in terms of this final Award. h) All other claims by parties against each other

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 20Th August, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhorea, Adv. …For Appellant.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 29.8.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA/1989/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-2016. The appeal was admitted on 31.1.2024 on the substantial questions of law. We have elaborately heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned advocate for the appellant

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

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

14,46,480/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 5883,58,39,895/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2012 showing the total income of Rs. 58,19,55,22,380/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 59,03,41,20,702/-. The case was selected 5 for scrutiny and notices under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY

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

price for purchasing the tenancy right is false. The Tribunal noted the decision of this Court in the case A. Gasper Vs. CIT 1979 (117) ITR 581 (Cal) wherein it was held that the monthly tenancy of the assessee was a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Further, it was held that the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

14 Section 88 of the Trusts Act. Although standing in a fiduciary capacity a solicitor, as agent of his principal, namely the client, has a lien on client money and over goods bailed to him for his costs. This appears from Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. . . .” “13. Mr. Pal argued that we should not be guided by Tattersall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

14 Section 88 of the Trusts Act. Although standing in a fiduciary capacity a solicitor, as agent of his principal, namely the client, has a lien on client money and over goods bailed to him for his costs. This appears from Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. . . .” “13. Mr. Pal argued that we should not be guided by Tattersall

RAJEEV BISWAS vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I KOLKATA vs. M/S GKW LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

transfer of title to the goods outside India and hence there is no income chargeable to tax in India and therefore the provisions of Section 195 of the Act are not attracted. It was also contended that such advances to suppliers have also not been charged to Profit and loss Account for the relevant assessment year. 4. The Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BST INFRATECH LTD

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

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

14. Before we examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the learned tribunal it will be beneficial to take note of a few decisions which have elaborately dealt with Section 68 of the Act and what are the parameters which are required to be established to prove the creditworthiness or the genuineness of a transaction. 15. Mr. Om Narayan

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed