BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 27 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.11.2025,27.11.2025, 05.01.2026, 10.11.2025, 02.12.2025, 29.01.2026 for the AYs2013-14, 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2022-23 &2023-24.

2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 781/KOL/2026 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of ₹56,79,609/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 14A of Read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules,

3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income during the year u/s 139(4) of the Act on 30.08.2014, declaring income of ₹31,06,79,850/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.08.2015 and 142(1) of the Act dated 29.10.2015, along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO during the course of assessment observed that assessee has made a huge investments into shares and has not made any disallowance of expenses in relation to earning of exempt income and accordingly, called upon the assessee to explain the same. Finally, the ld. AO invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules and computed the disallowance in respect of interest proportionately at₹50,61,263/- and also applied 0.5% on the average value of investments which comes to ₹6,18,346/- thereby making aggregate disallowance of ₹56,79,609/-.

3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same.

3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the undisputed facts are that during the year the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of iron and steel, telecom and power,

3.4. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 782/KOL/2026 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that assessee has raised additional grounds vide letter dated 05.05.2026, which are extracted below for the purpose of ready reference:-

"That, on facts and on circumstances of the case, the reopening u/s147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 of the Act along with order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 27.07.2022 passed subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court case in UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04-05-2022]] is barred by limitation in view of the surviving time limit provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03-10-2024]". That, the reason which lead to reopening having not survived in the assessment made there was no information thus to uphold reopening u/s 148 of the Act."” 4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.11.2017 disclosing the total income at

4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022, are hopelessly barred by limitations and so is the assessment

4.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the notice u/s 148 of the Act under old regime was issued on 26.06.2021.Subsequent to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aggarwal (2022)444 ITR 1(SC), the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 2.6.2022along with information which suggested that the income has escaped assessment. The assessee replied the said show cause notice dated 2.6.2022 on 17.6.2022 and thereafter the AO after considering the reply of the assessee passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.7.2022 re-opening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 was also issued on the same date i.e. 27.7.2022. The ld. AR submitted that surviving time limit after accounting for all exclusions was 5 days only which is extended to 7 days as per sixth proviso. The ld. AR submitted that thus due date for issuance of notice 148 of the Act would be on 17.06.2022 + 7 days i.e. on 24.06.2022, however, the order u/s 148 A(d) of the Act was passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 27.07.2022. For the sake of ready reference, the example given in Rajeev Bansal case (supra) as well as the calculation in the assessee’s case are extracted below:-

Particulars Example Given in Rajeev Timelines in the case of Bansal the assessee Notice issued u/s 148 as per old law 01.05.2021 26.06.2021 Surviving Time Limit - After accounting for all the 61 days computed from 5 days

“"111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities (1) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c): (i) take a decision under Section 1494(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee, and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022." 4.3.2. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are inclined to quash the order passed

4.4. The additional ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

5.1. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

A.Y. 2018-19 ITA No. 346/KOL/2026 7. At the time of hearing, we observe that the assessee has raised following additional grounds vide letter dated 12.05.2026, which are extracted below for the sake of ready reference:-

“1. That, on facts and on circumstances of the case, the reopening u/s147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 of the Act along with order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 28.04.2022 after expire of three years is barred by limitation as per section 149(1(a) of the Act. 2. That, the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act issued without providing information and material which suggest that income of the assessee has escaped assessment is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act without complying with the ingredients of sec.148A of the Act and also without passing a speaking order is ab initio void, ultra vires and null in law. 4. That, regular assessment having been completed vide order 09.04.2021, the present reopening proceedings is purely a case of change of opinion.

8.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2018, declaring total income at ₹67,38,16,617/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessment was accordingly framed vide order dated 01.04.2021, accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the show cause notice was

8.2. The assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), however, the ld. CIT (A) after taking into account the contentions and submissions of the assessee confirmed the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

8.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on records. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has contended that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 149(1)(a) of the Act as the case of the assessee does not within the scope of section 149(1)(b) of the Act. We note that in the instant case of the assessee, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 15.03.2022 wherein the due date of reply was 22.03.2022. The assessee filed reply after due date on 26.03.2022. Hence if period from 15.03.2022 to 26.03.2022 excluded , then the time limit left with the AO to pass order u/s 148A(d) of the Act by 31.03.2022 was 5 days. Therefore, when the said period is extended to 7 days, the order u/s 148A(d) was to be passed and notice u/s 148 was to be issued by 02.04.2022. however, the Id.AO did not pass order within that date. Thus, the notice is barred by the limitation in terms of section 149(1)(a) of the Act. For the sake of ready reference, we extract the provisions of section 149(1) of the Act and provisos thereto as under:

8.3.2. We note that the third and fourth proviso to section 149(1) of the Act provide for certain exclusions and extensions for determining the period of limitation u/s 149(1) of the Act. As per third proviso, time allowed or extended time allowed to the assessee to file response to notice u/s 148/A(b) of the Act shall be excluded. Thereafter, fourth proviso provides that immediately after exclusion of period as per third proviso, if the AO has less than 7 days to pass order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, then such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation u/s 149 shall be deemed to have been extended accordingly. This means where the AO is left with less than 7 days for passing order, he has to pass order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issue notice u/s 148 pf the Act within 7 days.

8.3.3. We also note that a fresh notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2022 which was same in all respect with the notice issued u/s 148 of Act dated 15.03.2022. We note that there was no reference to the notice dated 15.03.2022 in the second notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. We also note that the second notice issued u/s 148 of the Act referred to the same approval dated 09.03.2022. The due date of reply as per notice was 11.04.2022 and the reply was filed by assessee on 09.04.2022. Now again as per the limitation provided in

8.4. The additional ground no. 1 is allowed.

9.1. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records including the relevant provisions of the Act as cited before us by the Counsel for the assessee. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that notice u/s 148 cannot be

"Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice:" 9.1.1. Further what is information provided under Explanation 1 , the same is reproduced as under for ready reference:

"Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section and section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means, (i) any information in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time; or (ii) any audit objection to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act: or (iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A of the Act; or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under section 1351; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or aourt.” 9.1.2. On perusal of aforesaid Explanation 1, it shall be clear that the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means shall be any information in the case of the

9.1.3. Further, on perusal of both notices u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 15.03.2022 and 31.03.2022, it shall be evident that the Ld.AO has made mere allegation without providing any information which suggest that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The Id.AO has not provided the nature of transaction, date of transaction, whether it is through bank or cash etc. The Ld.AO has also not provided dissemination note/final report of investigation/material relied upon for reopening the case of the assessee. In fact the notices itself proved that the Ld.AO has only made allegation without relying and also without providing any information as to why such allegation has been made. Hence, the very condition for issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act that the Ld.AO must have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment fails. The condition u/s 148A(b) of the Act that the Ld.AO should provide assessee an opportunity with the information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment was not complied with as no information/ material was provided to the assessee.

9.1.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05- 2022/1, while dealing with the notices issued under old

(1) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 1484 of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show- cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter;" 9.1.5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/ has also held that a show cause notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. The relevant extracts of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under:

"106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirtydays from the date of the judgment. A show conce notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of

9.1.7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Anurag Gupta vs. ITO& Ors. in [2023] 454 ITR 326 (Bom) as deciding the said issue by observing and holding as under:

“Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The main ground of challenge as was urged by Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing can be summarized as under: It was urged that the procedure as prescribed under section 148A(b) of the Act as also the principles of natural justice had been violated, inas-much as while the petitioner was given the information in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act, the material which ought to have been provided to the petitioner was not so furnished, in the absence whereof the petitioner was precluded from filing an effective reply to the show-cause notice.. Mr. Manwani, learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand stated that there was no such obligation cast upon the Revenue in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act to provide to the assessee anything beyond pro-viding him the information. Per contra, Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the apex court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) and in particular paragraph 10 thereof which reads as under (page 22 of 444 ITR):

9.2. The additional ground no.2 is allowed.

A.Y. 2019-20

ITA No. 783/KOL/2026 11. The issue raised by the assessee in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹7,20,000/- as made by the ld. AO/CPC, u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by ignoring the fact that as exempt income duly declared in the return of income under Schedule A-P/L.The other grounds are in support of ground no.1.

11.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2018, declaring total income at ₹65,95,39,955/- as income from business and profession in Schedule BP of return of income under the normal provisions of the Act and deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act of

11.2. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, confirmed the said order of ld. AO/ CPC by confirming both the additions.

11.3. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the confirmation of addition on account of exempt income of ₹7,20,000/-.

11.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the exempt income from dividend in the return of income which the ld. AO/ CPC added to the income of the assessee while processing the return of income. In our opinion, there cannot be any addition to the income on account of exempt income. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.

11.5. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

A.Y. 2020-21 ITA No. 784/KOL/2026 12. The only issue raised by the assessee in ground nos. 1 and 2 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹99,61,086/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of provision for

12.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has claimed in the return of income the provisions for the payment of gratuity u/s 40A(7) of the Act in the return of income filed on 15.02.2021, declaring total income of ₹40,50,96,350/-. The ld. AO /CPC while processing the return of income added the said amount to the income of the assessee. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and in the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 23.09.2022 was framed. The ld. AO again added the said provisions for payment of gratuity u/s 40A(7) of the Act of ₹99,61,086/-, which has resulted into double disallowances of the same amount. We not that in the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) restored the issue to the file of the ld. JAO for looking into the issue. In our opinion, the order of ld. CIT (A) restoring the issue to the file of the ld. JAO to examine and verify the facts which are apparently available in the appeal folder is not appreciated. In our opinion, there has been double disallowances of the same amount in respect of payment of gratuity u/s 40A(7) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the ld. JAO to delete the addition of ₹99,61,086/-.

12.2. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

13.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 17.11.2022, declaring nil income. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 24.08.2022 and subsequent dates on the group entities of Bansal Group and its related persons. The assessee being a flagship company of the said group was also covered under the said search. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued along with the questionnaire which was replied by the assessee. The ld. AO, on the basis of seized document marked as AD/1 found during the course of search and seizure from the resident of Anita Dalmia, located at 11/1, Dalmia Bhawan, Madhab Ghosh Road, Salkia, Howrah- 711106, on 24.08.2022, found that the said document contained notings of certain transactions relating to bogus purchases made by the assessee company. Accordingly, AO asked the assessee to furnish the reply explanation which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 17.05.2023, by

13.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) after taking into account the reply/ submission/ contention of the assessee partly allowed the appeal by directing the ld. AO to restrict the addition to the profit rate of 4.77% thereby, sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹2,47,49,030/-. Simultaneously, the ld. CIT (A) also directed that the said amount shall be reduced by the regular net profit percentage

“5.2 Discussion and decision: 5.2.1. I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission of the assessee. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into purchase transactions of raw materials amounting to Rs.49.68,19,685/- with several parties viz. M/s R.S. Bokaro Metal Pvt. Ltd. (RSBMPL), M/s Shree Paras Metal (SPM), M/s ChandukaHightech Steel Pvt. Ltd. (CHSPL) & Bharat Rerolling Mills Ltd. (BRML). However, it is also observed that statement of Mrs. Anita Dalmia, manager internat Audit and Shri. Ram Gopal Bansal, Director of Bansal Group were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, wherein Mrs. Dalmia had confirmed on the basis of seized material AD/1 that M/s BMW Industries Ltd i.e., the appellant has made bogus purchase from the above entities. It is observed that on the sole basis of the said statement recorded of Mrs. Anita Dalmia, the AO had treated the said purchases made by the assessee as bogus and determined undisclosed profit made from such bogus purchases at Rs.3,97,45,575/- by applying 8% on such purchase amounting to Rs.49.68 Crores. 5.2.2. Further, it is also observed that the assessee has also entered into purchase transactions of raw materials amounting to Rs.2,20,27,921/- with a party namely viz. M/s Basuki Steel (BS). However, it is also observed that statement of Mrs. Anita Dalmia, manager internal Audit and Shri. Ram Gopal Bansal, Director of Bansal Group were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, wherein Mrs. Dalmia had confirmed on the basis of seized material AD/1 that M/s BMW Industries Ltd i.e., the appellant has made bogus purchase from the above entity and after the transaction. It is observed that on the sole basis of the said statement recorded of Mrs. Anita Dalmia, the AO had treated the said purchases made by the assessee as bogus and determined undisclosed profit made from such bogus purchases at Rs. 17,62,234/- by applying 8% on such purchase amounting to Rs.2.20 Crores. 5.2.3. It is observed that during the asst. proceedings, the assessee had contended that all the aforesaid parties from whom the said purchases of Raw materials were made were genuine parties and the income filed by those parties for the subjected year were quite high and the AO had not brought any independent evidence on record to substantiate the fact that the aforesaid parties were bogus parties and the corresponding purchase transactions are ingenuine. The assessee had also claimed that the person from whom the statements was recorded i.e., Mrs. Anita Dalmia was in bad books with the assessee company. It had also claimed that the incriminating materials pertaining to such alleged bogus purchases were seized from the residential premises of Mrs. Dalmia not from the business premises of the assessee company. It had also claimed that it had no knowledge of the fact

Intentionally left Blank

5.2.5. It is observed that the A.O has not enquired and cross checked the genuineness of existence of such companies and went ahead with a preconceived notion based on the information erupted during the period of investigation prior to disseminating the same to the A.O. However, the

13.4. Ground no.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.

14.1. The facts in brief are that the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted from the seized document AD/1 that assessee has entered into certain cash transactions. The said cash transactions for the sake of ready reference are as under:-

Sl Name Cash Receipt Cash payment No. 1. Basuki 1,97,25,000 2. Bhagatjee 38,76,120 3. Ramdoot 2,26,95,000 4. Gajanan 19,70,610 5. Lakhi 1,03,00,000 6. SS Banka 8,40,000 7. Veer 83,00,000 8. Star Trading 48,00,000 9. Loan Repayment 8,40,000 Total 3,67,11,730 3,66,35,000 14.1.1. On perusal of the above document is clear that the cash receipt transactions and cash payment transactions were ₹3,67,11,730/- and ₹3,66,35,000/- respectively. However, the ld. AO computed the cash receipts and cash payments on pick and choose basis as under:-

Sl Name Cash Receipt Cash payment No. 1. Bhagatjee 38,76,120 2. Ramdoot 2,26,95,000 3. Lakhi 1,03,00,000 4. Veer 83,00,000 5. Star Trading 48,00,000 6. Loan Repayment 8,40,000 Total 3,67,11,730 3,66,35,000

14.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) accepted that the ld. AO has not enquired or cross checked existence of such companies. The ld. CIT (A) further held that allegation and adverse view formed by the ld. AO against the soundness of the said entities were based on surmises and conjectures. The ld. CIT (A) held that allegation made by the ld. AO by relying on the seized material from the premises of Anita Dalmia was based on surmises and presumption and without conducting proper enquiries and without application of mind. However, the ld. CIT (A) restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO by observing and holding as under:-

6.2 Discussion & decisions:“ 6.2.1. I have perused the asst. order as well as the submission of the appellant. It is observed that as per the seized documents AD/1 at page no. 25, several cash receipts and payments made by the appellant were found by the AO. The details of such cash payments and receipts were mentioned at page no.18 of the asst. order. From the said details of such cash payments and receipts, the AO had determined excess of cash payment over cash receipt at Rs.2,24,58,880/-, Subsequently, the AO had made an addition of Rs.2.24 Crores as unexplained expenditure within the meaning of section 69C of the Act. 6.2.2. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant had contended that the total cash transaction as noted in the table drawn at page no. 18 of the assessment order was made on pick and choose basis and thereby it was claimed that the AO omitted to go through some other impugned cash receipts as were originally found noted on page-25 of the seized document AD/1. As per the contention of the appellant, in the said seized page, the aggregate of the impugned cash receipts was to the tune of Rs 3,67,11,730/- which was taken at a reduced figure of Rs.1,41,76,120/- in the table drawn (supra). According to the appellant, the aggregate of the impugned cash payment was to the tune of Rs.3,66,35,000/-instead of Rs.1.41 crores. Thus, the net difference between impugned receipt and payment claimed by the

14.4. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

A.Y. 2023-24 ITA No. 786/KOL/2026 15. The issue raised in ground nos. 1,2 and 3 is against the confirmation of disallowance of ₹8,76,231/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of expenditure incurred on club and entry fees subscription for various club facilities by taking the same as personal in nature.

i. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1992) 195 ITR 682,

ii. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Samtel Color Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 425 (Delhi)

iii. Nijhawan Travel Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 174 taxmann.com 464 (Delhi - Trib.)[25-04-2025]

iv. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 352 (Kolkata - Trib.)[10-06-2025]

15.1.1. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition.

15.2. The ground no 1 to 3 are allowed.

16.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. AO needs to examine the issue in the light of the order of the Tribunal and allow the brought forward losses accordingly. Consequently, we restore this issue to the file of the ld. AO to examine the order of the co-ordinate bench and allow the brought forward loses to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes.

16.2. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced and on 23.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESISENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 23.06.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata