DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD., KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii) for the assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) had followed a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified, considering a prior ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
M/s. K B Capital Markets (P) Ltd..…………………………………………………….…………………...Respondent [PAN :AABCK 1174 F] Appearances by: Shri S. Halder, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri A. Dedhewala, Ld. AR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.. Date of concluding the hearing : January 14, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : January 16, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member :-
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’], dated 13.02.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.
After hearing rival contentions, we find that the issue of disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii) are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09, & 1882/Kol/2012 order dated 13.05.2016.
2 M/s. K B Capital Markets (P) Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. As the ld. CIT(A) has admittedly applied this decision of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in his order. In the result, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Kolkata, the 16th January, 2019.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026