Calcutta High Court – taxcaselaw.com

Calcutta H.C: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the assessee and the persons who hired office accommodation from the assessee is based on any relevant evidence or authority ?

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Sections 22, 28(i) Y.R. Meena & Ashim Kumar Banerjee, JJ. IT Ref. No. 64 of 1993 16th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared Ram Chandra Prasad, for the Revenue : R.K. Murarka, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. : In compliance with the direction of this …

Calcutta H.C : Payment of interest on delayed delivery of plot was not in the nature of interest as defined in Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not applicable

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Section 2(28A), 40(a)(ia), 194A Asst. Year 2005-2006 Aniruddha Bose & Moushumi Bhattacharya, JJ. ITA No. 84 OF 2018 & 85 of 2018 9th August, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Animesh Kanti Ghosal, Sr. Adv P. Dudheria, Adv. for the Appellant.: J P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. …

Calcutta H.C : if the mortgage had been created by the previous owner and the assessee after inheriting the same had discharged the mortgage debt, the amount paid by the assessee for the purpose of clearing off the mortgage could be claimed as a part of cost of acquisition under Section 48 and Section 49 read with Section 55(2)

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Aditya Kumar Jajodia Section 55(1)(b)(2)(ii), 45, 47, 49 Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITAT No. 114 of 2014 GA No. 2277 of 2014 20th July, 2018 Counsel appeared: Md. Nizamuddin, Adv. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner THE COURT Two questions have been raised by the Revenue …

Calcutta H.C : Possession of the land owned by the assessee was made over to a developer pursuant to an agreement of February 7, 2007 for construction being undertaken thereon, in view of amended Section 2(47)(v)

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. Infinity Infotech Parks Limited Section 2(47)(v), 45, 263, 53, 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Asst. Year 2007-08 Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITAT No. 225 of 2015 GA No. 4049 of 2015 GA No. 4050 of 2015 18th July, 2018 Counsel appeared: Md. Nizamuddin, Adv. J. P. …

Calcutta H.C : Whether the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act in course of reassessment proceedings would vitiate the reassessment proceedings altogether?

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Section 147, 148 Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITAT No.152 of 2015 & GA No. 3671 of 2015 22nd June, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Nizamuddin, Adv., R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Adv. & Akhilesh Gupta, Asim Choudhury & Rohan Poddar, Adv., for the Petitioner. THE COURT: 1. The …

Calcutta H.C : The additional expenses incurred by the assessee for restructuring its business should have been reckoned to be a capital expenditure

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. Akzo Noble India Ltd. Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. GA No. 3388 of 2016 & ITAT No. 414 of 2016 15th May, 2018 Counsel Appeared: P. Dudhoria, Adv., appears for the Appellant. : R.N.Bajoria, Sr. Adv., appears for the Respondent. THE COURT: 1. Two grounds are sought to be …

Calcutta H.C : The propriety of the Appellate Tribunal reversing an order passed under Section 263

High Court Of Calcutta Pr. CIT vs. Anjali Jewellwers (Pvt) Ltd. Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. Section 263 GA 3368 of 2016 In ITAT 325 of 2016 15th May, 2018 Counsel appeared: Nizamuddin, Advocate Siddhartha Bhattacharya, Advocate J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate for the Petitioner THE COURT The Revenue questions the propriety of the Appellate Tribunal …

Calcutta H.C : the appellant had not been served any notice prior to such order being made and that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the commissioner passed the relevant order

High Court Of Calcutta Brolly Dealcom LLP vs. Pr.CIT Section 263 Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITA No. 25 of 2018 GA No. 450 of 2017 7th May, 2018 Counsel Appeared: A. Gupta, Adv. Siddharth Das, Adv. Swapna Das, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Siddhartha Bhattahcaryya, Adv. for the Respondent THE COURT The limited question which …

Calcutta H.C : Tribunal has erred in law in allowing deduction under section 36(1) (viia) of the I.T.Act, 1961, for the same advances made for all previous years leading to multiple deductions in every assessment year by misinterpreting the Rule 6ABA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and also against the ratio of judgmen in the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. vs. UOI 199 ITR 43 (SC)

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. Uttarabanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Section 36(1)(viia) Asst. Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 Aniruddha Bose & Arindam Sinha, JJ. G.A No.291 of 2016 & ITAT no.76 of 2016 7th May, 2018 Counsel appeared: Nizamuddin, Adv. for the Revenue. : Khaitan learned Sr. Adv. for the Assessee. THE COURT: Revenue seeks to prefer …

Calcutta H.C : the appellant did not file its return for the relevant assessment year within the period prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act.

High Court Of Calcutta Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT Section 80-IB Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITAT No. 385 of 2016 & GA No. 3162 of 2016 & GA No. 690 of 2018 4th May, 2018 Counsel appeared: Sourav Bagaria, Protyush Jhunjhunwala & A. K. Dey, Adv., for the Appellant. : Siddhartha …

Tag: Calcutta High Court