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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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 of tax at source but in a case, where

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

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

3 and 4 in the Memorandum of Appeal as follows: Ground No.3: Without prejudice to the Additional Ground of appeal as above, that, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) - VI, Kol has erred in confirming the application of provision of Rule 80 read with Section 14A(1) & (2) of the Income

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

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

14A read with Rule 8D was made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(5) taking a possible view. It appears that the ld. Principal CIT, however, overlooked this vital aspect while holding the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue as 12 A.Y. 2012-2013 Eveready Industries India Limited

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

3), no disallowance under section 14A on account of interest was made by the Assessing Officer thereby accepting that the investment in shares was made by the assessee out of its own funds and there was no utilization of interest bearing borrowed funds for making such investment. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assesese from the relevant

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, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

14A the AO has to first record the reasons why he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee. We have already held that in the case before us the AO has given a clear-cut finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee. In the case

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

14A the AO has to first record the reasons why he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee. We have already held that in the case before us the AO has given a clear-cut finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee. In the case

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

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