BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

capital gain in terms of Section 45(2A) of the Act. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now we take up Ground Nos. 7 & 8 of the appeal, which are against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. The facts of the case as noted

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. ITA No.1079

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. ITA No.1079

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. ITA No.1079

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gains on the basis of the rate chargeable by the distribution licensee from the consumer and that the benefit could only be claimed on the basis of the rates fixed by the tariff regulatory commission for sale of electricity by the generating company. Facts being clearly distinguishable, this decision can be of no assistance to the revenue. ITA No.1079

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

80G of the Act on the payments made to ICC. On the said basis, the AO observed that the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce or business for a consideration and therefore the part of its activities such as holding of meetings, conferences and seminars have been treated as business activities. The Ld. A.R submitted that

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

80G of the Act on the payments made to ICC. On the said basis, the AO observed that the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce or business for a consideration and therefore the part of its activities such as holding of meetings, conferences and seminars have been treated as business activities. The Ld. A.R submitted that

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

section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well

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

section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP as well

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

80G(5)(vi) Income Tax 15 A R. Stanchem (P) Ltd. AY: 2013-14 of the I.T. Act, /04-05 (Exemption), 1961 (made Kolkata DIT(E)/3248/SE/2 12.12.2011 perpetual) 3/04-05 Registration Initial order no. 27.02.2004 CCIT-III, Kolkata u/s 10(23C) of 49 16.01.2014 the I.T. Act Renewal vide No. CCIT- III/10(23C)(iv)/11 -12/245 Recognition of Renewal till

APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain against which assessee has suo moto offered ₹3.70 lakhs as disallowance under section 14A. However, Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to explain why rule 8D should not be applied. Ld. CIT(A) also called for explanation in respect of deduction claimed under section 80G of ₹ 25.40 lakhs in view of section 115VL(ii). 3.4. In respect

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

80G for the relevant assessment year.” Page 4 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 641, 650 & 660/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. ITA No. 660/KOL/2022 for AY 2018-19: “1. The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and arbitrary, the same deserves to be quashed/annulled and set aside

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

80G for the relevant assessment year.” Page 4 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 641, 650 & 660/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. ITA No. 660/KOL/2022 for AY 2018-19: “1. The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and arbitrary, the same deserves to be quashed/annulled and set aside