DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

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

X 841,80,64,657 75301,53,24,500 = 50,29,36,092 From the above calculation, it is evident that out of total interest cost amounting to Rs. 4498,87,95,000, a proportionate part of interest to the extent of Rs. 50,29,36,092 was disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 12. The AO computed disallowance

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

depreciation of the merging company where there are clear violations of section 72A of the I.T. Act as directed by BIFR and upheld by AAIFR. 7. That the assessee craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal. 22. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

depreciation of the merging company where there are clear violations of section 72A of the I.T. Act as directed by BIFR and upheld by AAIFR. 7. That the assessee craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal. 22. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relate

NORBEN TEA & EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

24)(x) of the Act and would only go to the increase the business income of the assessee and corresponding reduction under the head income from other sources. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed. 8. Ground no. 2(b) relates to issue of direction to the Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance to 40% of the impugned

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

LIMTEX TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

2) of section 145 of the Income-tax Act provides that the Central Government may notify Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for any class of assessees or for any class of income. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified ICDS-I to ICDS-X vide Notification No.S.O. 892(E) dated 31st March, 2015 after wide public consultations

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation as is adopted while preparing its accounts that are laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with provisions of Sec.210 of the Companies Act. Explanation below Sec.115JB of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

24)(x) in respect of Employees' Contribution to PF/ESI is not retrospective and not applicable prior to A.Y 2021-22 and it may be held accordingly. 5. Without prejudice to validity of adjustments so made in order u/s 143(1), the AO failed to grant depreciation on cost of assets granted under sec. 43(1) read with sec. 43A vide

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

24)(x) in respect of Employees' Contribution to PF/ESI is not retrospective and not applicable prior to A.Y 2021-22 and it may be held accordingly. 5. Without prejudice to validity of adjustments so made in order u/s 143(1), the AO failed to grant depreciation on cost of assets granted under sec. 43(1) read with sec. 43A vide

ACIT,CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SELVEL ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Saini

24)(x) of the IT Act.” 4. The Grievances raised by the assessee in Cross Objection No.97/Kol/2016, are as follows: “For that the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 31-3-2016 carrying a demand of Rs.1,07,78,270/- served on the assessee company on 28-4- 2016 i.e. 28 days after period of limitation prescribed in Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SELVEL ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Saini

24)(x) of the IT Act.” 4. The Grievances raised by the assessee in Cross Objection No.97/Kol/2016, are as follows: “For that the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 31-3-2016 carrying a demand of Rs.1,07,78,270/- served on the assessee company on 28-4- 2016 i.e. 28 days after period of limitation prescribed in Section

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

24 Paraganas,\nWest Bengal\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nITO Ward, 2(1)\nAaykar Bhawan, P-7,\nChowringhee Square,\nKolkata-700069, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AACCH3906K\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nDate of hearing:\nDate of pronouncement:\n: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR\n: Shri Madanappa Raghuveer, DR\n19.01.2026\n10.02.2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, AM:\nThis is an appeal preferred