D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed
ITA 1741/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.
For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O
capital was at 63.77 crores. Therefore it amply proves that the Assessee has made investments from its own funds and as rightly pointed by the Ld.AR that the AO did not examine the nexus between the investments if any made from borrowed funds, without the same application o f Rule 8D to compute the expenditure for the purpose of disallowance
