TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without appreciating that the deduction was not allowable for the A.Y. 2010-11. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without appreciating that the deduction was not allowable for the A.Y. 2010-11. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without appreciating that the deduction was not allowable for the A.Y. 2010-11. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act in respect of the investment made in plant & machinery of Captive Power Plant, CPP-III without appreciating that the deduction was not allowable for the A.Y. 2010-11. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. If it is so, then the assessee was not having any loss or unabsorbed depreciation for set off or deduction as per explanation (iv) to sec. 115J(1A) of the Act because the loss or depreciation was already set off before declaration of dividend and there was no further loss

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (SUCESSOR OF HINDUSTHAN HEAVY CHEMICALS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC-X, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 205(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. If it is so, then the assessee was not having any loss or unabsorbed depreciation for set off or deduction as per explanation (iv) to sec. 115J(1A) of the Act because the loss or depreciation was already set off before declaration of dividend and there was no further loss

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation. The ld AO accordingly recomputed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA as under:- Profit from 80IA unit (as per return of income) 80,39,696 Less: Interest received (as per point a) above) 5,12,928 Less: Head office exps (as per point b) above) 8,84,703 Less: Diff in Depn (as per point c) above

CHANDRA KUMAR SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of ₹19,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) by treating the drawings and day-to-day expenses as undisclosed

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

928/- only. The AO further determined the loss from silk fabric business of the assessee after including the direct and indirect cost at Rs. 2,81,91,249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only

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

928/- only. The AO further determined the loss from silk fabric business of the assessee after including the direct and indirect cost at Rs. 2,81,91,249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1030/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle – 6(2) Kolkata......................................…………………………..........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd....................………………………………………Respondent 3, Commercial Union House, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aaacn 9967 E] Appearances By: Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2018. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In Insurance Business. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 30.09.2015 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 236,55,28,074/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 31.10.2017, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 1091,24,39,870/- After Making Additions Inter Alia On Account Of Disallowance Of Written Off Depreciated Investment Amounting To Rs. 1,33,58,000/-, Disallowance Of Amortisation Of Premium Paid On Investment Amounting To Rs. 5,89,11,000/- & Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D Amounting To Rs. 62,43,05,014/-. The Book Profit Of The Assessee Company U/S 115Jb Of The Act Was Also Computed By The Ao At Rs.

928/- after making additions inter alia on account of reserve created for unexpired risk amounting to Rs. 488,59,39,000/- and disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 70,70,62,845/-. 3. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made

APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS APEEJAY TEA LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1494/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

928/- D. Discount on warehousing charges Rs. 14,000/- E. Tea Board subsidy Rs. 1,14,975/- F. Scrap sale Rs. 41,548/- G. Storm Damage claim Rs. l,48,693 /- H. Received from IOL(Indian Oil Limited)Rs . 2,34,000/ - I. Realised from Auto Entines Rs. 81,142/- J. Bazar Rent Rs. 54,450/- K. Interest on I.T.Refund

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other income Direct and Indirect 3,13,08,769 110,57,05,380 expenditure Provision for tax 10,84,552 Net Profit