← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1055/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Page 1 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1053/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

Assessee also filed claim for deduction of INR 14,37,11,341/- for the proportionate premium paid on redemption of Debentures under Section 37(1) of the Act during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order, dated 07/05/2015

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

assessee has not contested its original claim of these amounts written off being in nature of bad debts written off in terms of section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is only the alternate claim of the assessee of the allowance of its amount in all to Rs.6.51 lakhs

Culver Max Entertainment Private Lmited ( Formerly Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor of Taj Television India Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7210/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Sony Pictures Networks Asst. Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income-Tax, (Successor Of Taj Television Circle 16(1) India Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Interface 7, 4Th Floor, Off Malad Room No. 467, Link Road, Malad (W), M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5103D Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

issue of delayed payment of service tax, resulting into interest payment he submits that it is hit by proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act and even otherwise, the same is not the business expenditure. He submits that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable ... 1,085,876/– was disallowed by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT – A as covered by the proviso to section 37 (1) of the act being expenditure in provision of law. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Snapdeal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

into; as long as it is voluntarily undertaken by the business enterprise for profit earning, it Would be entitled to claim relief under section 37(1). Similar view has been taken by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Modi Revlon Pvt.ltd. (210 Taxman 161) wherein similar disallowance

Kailash Gulabchand Liladiya, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 254/NAG/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

incurred by assessee on loan borrowed for buying shop premises was revenue in nature and would be allowable as deduction under section 37(1). 4. Without prejudice, the learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, loan processing charges of Rs.4,28,202/- was incurred

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act, is not available from Assessment Year 2015-16 as per the Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2. 2014.Whereas, the assessee company has made a claim for deduction of CSR expenses

Rhine Energy LLP, Bhagirath Palace vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nefac)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2021-22 Rhine Energy Llp Vs. Assessment Unit, Flat No. 4, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Mahalaxmi Market, Department, Nfac Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. Delhi - 110 006 Pan Aatfr6490A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 270ASection 37Section 37(1)

assessee submitted that disallowance of Rs. 18,73,722/- and Rs. 1,04,318/- were in connection with business promotion expenses claimed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned CIT(A) and Learned AO both erred in confirming disallowance ... 1,04,318/- on account of business and promotion expenses claimed by assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. It is evident that assessee had arranged a party at Taj Mahal Hotel and paid hotel bill

Shrijeet Finance P Ltd, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 68

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

DCIT, Circle -5 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 893/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 35DSection 35ESection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

JCIT(OSD), Circle -5, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 824/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 35DSection 35ESection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

JCIT(OSD), Circle -5, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 823/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 35DSection 35ESection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

JCIT(OSD), Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 822/KOL/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 35DSection 35ESection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1474/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1474/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata C/O. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Vs 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaach7473B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 20/11/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 06/09/2022 Relevant To Assessment Year 2020-21 Framed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Company Fully Owned By The Government Of India & Is A Public Sector Undertaking Carrying On The Business Of Building & Repair Of Ships & Boats. For The Year Under Consideration, E-Return Was Furnished On 27/01/2021 Which Was Subsequently Revised On 01/02/2021 Declaring Income Of Rs.1,53,68,81,820/-. After Serving Of Valid Notice U/S 143(2) & 142 (1)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35DSection 40

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE