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

capital gains', whereas any profit/ loss arising on sale\nof shares/securities held as 'trading assets' (i.e. held with the intention\nof acquiring, exercising and retaining control over the investee group\ncompanies) had been regularly offered and assessed to tax as business\nincome under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. The\nassessee filed return of income

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

capital gains', whereas any profit/ loss arising on sale\nof shares/securities held as 'trading assets' (i.e. held with the intention\nof acquiring, exercising and retaining control over the investee group\ncompanies) had been regularly offered and assessed to tax as business\nincome under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. The\nassessee filed return of income

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

capital gains', whereas any profit/ loss arising on sale\nof shares/securities held as 'trading assets' (i.e. held with the intention\nof acquiring, exercising and retaining control over the investee group\ncompanies) had been regularly offered and assessed to tax as business\nincome under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. The\nassessee filed return of income

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

capital gains', whereas any profit/ loss arising on sale\nof shares/securities held as 'trading assets' (i.e. held with the intention\nof acquiring, exercising and retaining control over the investee group\ncompanies) had been regularly offered and assessed to tax as business\nincome under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. The\nassessee filed return of income

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act,1961. (5) That Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in law as well as in fact in holding the long term capital gain on sale of shares as bogus. (6)That Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in law and failed to appreciate the different legal decisions of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Kolkata, which are squarely applicable

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of I.T. Act,1961. (5) That Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in law as well as in fact in holding the long term capital gain on sale of shares as bogus. (6)That Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in law and failed to appreciate the different legal decisions of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Kolkata, which are squarely applicable

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

gains, (F).-Income\nfrom other sources.'\nAs per section 56 of the Act, 'Income' would be 'Income from other\nsources' as per the provision of Section 56, which reads as follows.\n'Section 56. Income from other sources\n'Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total\nincome under this Act shall be chargeable

MANISH COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 14A of the Act while computing the total income by alleging that assessee has claimed long-term capital gains

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules without appreciating that section 14A/Rule 8D(2)(iii) which calls for notional disallowance, does not have any application in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules without appreciating that section 14A/Rule 8D(2)(iii) which calls for notional disallowance, does not have any application in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 14A, which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income, read with Rule 8D is triggered, a rule of thumb amount would have to be calculated at the prescribed percentage of the investment, income from which does not or shall not form a part of the total income, to arrive

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

14A amounts to miscarriage of justice. 3. For that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the nature of business of the Company is such that it is required to maintain a Guest House for the purpose of its business. 4. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Guest-House at Nalla Fort in Jaipur

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

14A amounts to miscarriage of justice. 3. For that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the nature of business of the Company is such that it is required to maintain a Guest House for the purpose of its business. 4. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Guest-House at Nalla Fort in Jaipur

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

14A amounts to miscarriage of justice. 3. For that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the nature of business of the Company is such that it is required to maintain a Guest House for the purpose of its business. 4. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Guest-House at Nalla Fort in Jaipur

DIDU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

capital has cost and that element of cost is represented by interest. Besides, investment decisions are generally taken in the meetings of the Board of directors for which administrative expenses are incurred. In view of above, Rule 8D of the IT Rules have been applied for computation of disallowance.” In this regard, it deserves to be held that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

gain it was observed that the assessee has paid taxes treating it to be long term capital asset and paid concessional tax rate as provided u/s 112 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.519,61,39,830/-. 5.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 6. Aggrieved revenue is now in appeal before this

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and not all overhead\nexpenses/common expenses are allowable in the said head. He\nfurther pleaded that income from investment (even debt mutual\nfund) is exempt in nature and where there is no exempt income\nearned, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). 3. The facts qua the first issue raised by the assessee are that the assessee, during the year, has incurred loss of Rs.3,98,50,208/- which comprised of share trading loss amounting to Rs.2,87,07,277/- and Rs.1,11,42,931/- in respect of loss on trading