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

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

40(a)(i) of Rs.3,06,20,256/- paid as commission to non-resident by considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal was allowed and the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.32.42 crores was held to be a capital receipt

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 :

transfer pricing adjustment. Thereafter the assessing officer called for various details and the matter was discussed with the assessee. The issue which was considered by the assessing officer are with regard to the 6 unexpired discount on forward contracts, market to market loss of forward contracts, designed charges, non-deduction of TDS for information technology expense, information technology expense, patent

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

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 ?

40,070/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The same was rejected by the assessing officer by communication dated 23rd July, 2014 on the ground that tax has been correctly computed on the income return by the assessee and a fresh claim of change of income is not liable 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 ?

40,070/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The same was rejected by the assessing officer by communication dated 23rd July, 2014 on the ground that tax has been correctly computed on the income return by the assessee and a fresh claim of change of income is not liable under Section

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

prices of the scripts of very little known companies. 25. While on this issue it would be beneficial to take note of the decision in Yadu Hari Dalmia Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central) 7 wherein it was held that the whole catena of sections starting from Section 68 have been introduced in the taxing enactment step by step

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

PRINCIPAL CIT-14, KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

RAJESH JAJODIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 45 KOLKATA AND ORS

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

M/S SINGHI AND CO vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became