APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23,307 1,40,266 Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23,307 1,40,266 Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23,307 1,40,266 Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. The assessee company also submitted assessment orders of various previous AY's wherein assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was duly completed. The assessee submitted that similar financial transactions were undertaken by the assessee company with its subsidiary company and all the relevant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

deemed dividend addition as per judicial consistency principle. The Revenue fails in its former substantive ground. 4. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground seeks to revive sec. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

dividend were not applicable in the case of the assessee. The\nrelevant part of the remand report dated 10.05.2023 of the Assessing\nOfficer is reproduced as under:\n“In view of the above, the following points are need to be highlighted;\n1. The assessee сотрапу availed unsecured financial\naccommodation for working capital and other operational needs\nwith M/s. Merino Panel

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. M. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by CIT(A). For the reasons given on the same issue for A.Y.2008-09, we find no merits in ground no.1 to 5 raised by the revenue. 9. Ground No.6 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- “6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. M. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by CIT(A). For the reasons given on the same issue for A.Y.2008-09, we find no merits in ground no.1 to 5 raised by the revenue. 9. Ground No.6 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- “6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)( e ) can be made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently Gr.No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 30. Ground no.3 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: “3. That the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). He restricted the disallowance on account of deemed dividend to the expenditure of accumulated

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed and that of CO of assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09 Dcit, Circle-11(1), M/S Development बनाम / P-7, Chowringhee Constultant Pvt. Ltd., 24, V/S. Square, Kolkata-69 Park Street, Kolkata-16 [Pan No.Aaacd 8900 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

dividend income can only be considered for the purpose of the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules 1962. Thus the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed. Accordingly, AO is directed. Coming to assessee’s CO No.21/Kol/2016. 8. As far as CO filed by assessee is concerned, the first aspect to be considered

SHRI SAHADEB PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 17, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.768/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

dividend on account of loan received from a company in which the assessee was substantial interested. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the Assessing Officer also failed to examine whether the loan constituted deemed interest u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was, therefore, found

SMT. SANGITA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not approve the action of the Assessing Officer after having noticed that interest at the rate of 9% per annum was paid by the assessee on such loan, which, according to him, was a consideration received from her shareholders, which was beneficial to the Company

M/S BHORUKA INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

disallowance of Rs. 12,08,616/- u/s 2(22)(e) is excessive.” By the Revenue “2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,21,302/- and restricted the addition to Rs. 12,08,816/- instead of Rs. 94,79,340/- under the head Deemed Dividend

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BHORUKA INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

disallowance of Rs. 12,08,616/- u/s 2(22)(e) is excessive.” By the Revenue “2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,21,302/- and restricted the addition to Rs. 12,08,816/- instead of Rs. 94,79,340/- under the head Deemed Dividend

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

deemed dividend to the extent of their Reserves and Surplus. (i) Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,80,00,000 (ii) TCG Software Parks Pvt. Ltd Rs. 9,95,00,000 Total Rs.13,75,00,000 Apart from this, the assessee has suo moto disallowed

TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

deemed dividend to the extent of their Reserves and Surplus. (i) Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,80,00,000 (ii) TCG Software Parks Pvt. Ltd Rs. 9,95,00,000 Total Rs.13,75,00,000 Apart from this, the assessee has suo moto disallowed

DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - Rs. 5,58,93,000/- Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) - Rs. 64,96,988/- Disallowance