M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

14A read with Rule 8D for the purpose of\ncomputation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act?\n9. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has erred to decipher the intrinsic purpose of accounting\nstandard 29. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to recognize the provisions which\ncannot

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

14A read with Rule 8D for the purpose of\ncomputation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act?\n9. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has erred to decipher the intrinsic purpose of accounting\nstandard 29. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to recognize the provisions which\ncannot

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

14A of the Act for\nthe purpose of computation of MAT is upheld as Hon'ble Supreme Court\nhave held in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) that section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 37(1) is not attracted. In view of the above, it is to be held that the disallowance of Rs.6,55,30,392/- as made by the AO in the impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore on the facts of the case the addition of Rs.6,55,30,392/- is deleted.” 3 I.T.A No.1531/Kol/2017 M/s. Rngta Mines

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii), which is issue in the appellant’s appeal, is restored to the file of the AO for recomputation in line with the direction given above.” So, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue for the limited purpose of recomputing the disallowance as per Rule

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed.” M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Limited 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue on hand is covered by the order of Kolkata Tribunal supra and following the same, we confirm the order of CIT-A and delete

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave

M/S. BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS refund; (c) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,35,844/-, which was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the ground that P.F. & ESI payments were not made within the due date provided under those Acts; (d) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.90,450/-, which was added

NF FORGINGS PVT. LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PR.CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 263, the following explanation was offered by the assessee in writing:- “The grounds raised for issue of show cause notice u/s 263(1) being that the Assessing Officer did not disallow the expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Act, 1961 and thus the assessment was passed without making enquiries/ verification

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Similarly, investments made in subsidiary companies would have to be reckoned as strategic investments and hence the same should be excluded while working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Similarly, the investments which had yielded dividend income alone , are to be considered ITA No.117/Kol/2017

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, cannot be supported and thus, the action of Ld. CIT(A) as per his findings on page 45 of the impugned order is upheld and the specific ground of the revenue is dismissed.” Considering the finding given in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) we hold that this issue needs to be decided

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, cannot be supported and thus, the action of Ld. CIT(A) as per his findings on page 45 of the impugned order is upheld and the specific ground of the revenue is dismissed.” Considering the finding given in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) we hold that this issue needs to be decided