APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the further disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs. 1,40,266/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D over such disallowance already offered by the appellant in its computation of income. 3. That

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the further disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs. 1,40,266/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D over such disallowance already offered by the appellant in its computation of income. 3. That

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the further disallowance made by AO amounting to Rs. 1,40,266/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D over such disallowance already offered by the appellant in its computation of income. 3. That

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

2% u/s 194C whereas as a matter of fact, TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

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

14A read with Rule 8D for the purpose of computation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act? 9. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to decipher the intrinsic purpose of accounting standard 29. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred to recognize the provisions which cannot

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

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

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

2,20,94,366 ( Rs. 3,17,32,734 - Rs. 96,38,368). 29. The CIT(A) allowed claim of the Assessee to the extent the Assessee produced challans evidencing payment of TDS. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard: “49. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment

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 8D(2

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

14A of the Act having regard to the books of accounts on some rational basis as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, in terms of clause (f) of section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the disallowance already made by the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

14A of the Act having regard to the books of accounts on some rational basis as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, in terms of clause (f) of section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the disallowance already made by the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee

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

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

TDS had duly been deducted. This fact itself is enough to cast shadow upon the applicability of section 2(22)e of the Act. In this I.T.(SS)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd. context, the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT reported

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