ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA vs. SNOWFALL COMMOTRADE PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

dividend income during the year can be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s.14A. The assessee has submitted a working for disallowance u/s.14A, and based on such working, the amount disallowable comes to Rs.3,250.97. The same appears reasonable and in consonance with the judicial principles laid down. In view of the above facts and judicial pronouncements, the disallowance made

SHRI BUDHRAJ AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

dividend paying company) and report of analyst in support of rise in prices of the shares. 5. For that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order without himself carrying out any inquiry whatsoever. 6. For that the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 263 when he himself did not make any definite finding

WINSHER COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(2), PRESENTLY D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATAKOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 668/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Winsher Commercial Pvt. Limited,…....….Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaacw3125H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-14(2), Kolkata, [Presently Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata], Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 O R D E R

deem it appropriate to take note of the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) from paragraphs no. 5 to 5.3, which read as under:- “5. Ground No. 1: In the ground No. 1, the appellant has. challenged that on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in making addition by treating the trade

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus and unexplained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of 1.T. Act., but the assessee failed to put forward any explanation till the date of passing of this order. From the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is evident that assessee has no explanation to offer in this regard which reveals that the assessee

GRAFTON MERCHANT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)/KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

deemed fit to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions thereon. Towards this end, the ld. AO issued summons to the directors of the assessee company. It is recorded in the ld. AO’s order that the assessee was asked to produce the directors of the subscribing companies/investors to establish their identity