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]

14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee-company. 10. In the assessment completed under section

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

14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 issued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income?\n8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income?\n8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income?\n8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income?\n8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2)(iii) of the\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\nissued on 11.02.2014 which provides for disallowance of the expenditure\nu/s. 14A read with Rule 8D even where taxpayer in a particular year has\nnot earned any exempt income?\n8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

14A in computation of the ‘Book Profit’ under section 115JB.” 32. Sec.115JB(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income-tax, payable on the total income as computed under the Act in respect of any previous year relevant

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Depreciation in respect of M/s. Vortal Undertaking were transferred, pursuant to section 72A(4) of the Act, from the demerged company (M/s. Star Ya Kalakaar.Com Limited) to the resulting company (M/s. Padma Logistic & Khanij Private Limited) w.e.f. the appointed date i.e. 01.03.2010. The claim of assessee is as per law and the AO erred in refusing to consider the Revised

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

section 14A(2). The Assessing Officer noted that the appellant had not considered the huge expenses debited as Bank Charges and other indirect expenses in Insurance Revenue Account for the calculation whereas the Dividend and exempt Interest income were disclosed in Insurance Revenue Account also. On the basis of his above observations the Assessing Officer applied Rule

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

14A of the Act having regard to the books of accounts on some rational basis as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, in terms of clause (f) of section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the disallowance already made by the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

14A of the Act having regard to the books of accounts on some rational basis as expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, in terms of clause (f) of section 115JB(2) of the Act. Hence the disallowance already made by the assessee having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). 4.0 Disallowance of principal repayment of finance lease 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in law, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,85,68,539/- proposed by the Ld. AO on account of lease rental as capital expenditure