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

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

STERLING FINVEST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-5(1), Sterling Finvst Private Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan 1, Bonafide Lane, First Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca8245L Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

capital gain from the sale of equity shares of the said company. 04. In the appellate proceeding, the Learned CIT (A) deleted the addition in respect of disallowance u/s 14A, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, while sustaining the addition of ₹53,84,681 as made by the Learned AO under Section

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

capital gains of ₹5,49,842/- as exempt income. Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D

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

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 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

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 capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TIRUPATI NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), O/O The Dcit, Central Circle 1(1) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. 110, Shantipally, Em By Pass Kolkata-700029, West Bengal Pin-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct4058P Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 50C, as held in various judicial decisions, as mentioned in the preceding paras. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs. 1,91,83,329/- under the head 'Long Term Capital gains' is deleted. 4. Grounds of Appeal No.3 4.1 Assessee had made investments in shares. However, assessee had not disallowed any expenses

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8D indicate that it is not necessary that\nexempt income should necessarily be included in a particular\nyear's income, for disallowance to be triggered and section 14A\ndoes not use the word ‘income of the year' but ‘income under the\nAct', therefore, for invoking disallowance under section 14A is not\nmaterial that assessee should have earned such exempt income

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

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A and rule 8D, hence the\naddition be deleted.\n3. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law, as well as in fact by not considering the\nsubmission of the applicant about the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii)\namount of expenditure related to earning of the exempt income for\n₹16,29,044 only and rather affirming the amount

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 by taking the value of the cost of investments sold in accordance with FIFO Method, as mandated by Section 45(2A) of the Act. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified on facts and in law in denying the deduction of Rs.11.07

M/S. EXIM SCRIPS DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.756/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) M/S Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 412, Mukti Chambers, 4Th Floor, 4, Clive Row, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Aaace 6906 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 2. Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In Assessee’S Appeal Was Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao In Respect Of The Disallowance Of Expenditure Earned In Respect Of Exempt Income By Applying The Provisions Of Rule 8D Read With The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The There Was No Satisfaction Recorded For The Purpose Of Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That On Identical Circumstances The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee'S Own

8D, jurisdictional bench of Tribunal in a number of cases taken 1% of exempted income to be reasonable estimate for expenditure relatable to exempt income. Even by that yard stick the claim of having incurred expenditure of Rs. 8,050/- in relation to dividend income of Rs. 48,04,057/- and “Long Term Capital Gain

DCIT,CC-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. ARYAN MINING AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED, HIDE LANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Aryan Mining & Trading Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Corporation Limited, 110, Shantipally, 4 Th Floor, P-1, Hide Lane, Johar Building, Vs. Pin-700073, West Bengal Pin-700073, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadca7247B Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsian, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section Rule 8D of the Rules, ignoring the law that average value of investment needs to be calculated first. The ld. AR submits that ld. CIT (A) have directed the ld. AO to verify and recompute the disallowance considering all those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year and there is no infirmity in the said order

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

8D, and as interpreted by the Hon'ble Courts in the aforementioned decisions.” 7.6 It is also submitted that the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not automatic and mechanical and, in this regard, reliance has been placed upon the following decisions: a. CIT vs. REI Agro Ltd [2013] 144 ITD 141 (Kolkata -Trib.) b. DCIT v. Ashish

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI/ D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

8D of the I.T. Rules, 1961. 7. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 1,62,80,000/-, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the ld. CIT (A) has also erred

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

8D of the I.T. Rules, 1961. 7. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 1,62,80,000/-, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the ld. CIT (A) has also erred

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

8D of the I.T. Rules, 1961. 7. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 1,62,80,000/-, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That the ld. CIT (A) has also erred

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A and rule 8D, hence the\naddition be deleted.\n3. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law, as well as in fact by not considering the\nsubmission of the applicant about the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii)\namount of expenditure related to earning of the exempt income for\n₹16,29,044 only and rather affirming the amount