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

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

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]

10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where there is a complete non- deduction

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

2)(iii) is Rs.5,53,878/-\nand made a request to accept accordingly.\n25.2. The A/R has explained in various ways with logic but the related\nexpenses including interest on loans are indivisible and no way can be\nconcluded that there is no direct involvement of loan with the investment.\nThe decisions of \"A\" Bench of Chennai ITAT

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

2)(iii) is Rs.5,53,878/-\nand made a request to accept accordingly.\n25.2. The A/R has explained in various ways with logic but the related\nexpenses including interest on loans are indivisible and no way can be\nconcluded that there is no direct involvement of loan with the investment.\nThe decisions of \"A\" Bench of Chennai ITAT

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

2)(iii) is Rs.5,53,878/-\nand made a request to accept accordingly.\n25.2. The A/R has explained in various ways with logic but the related\nexpenses including interest on loans are indivisible and no way can be\nconcluded that there is no direct involvement of loan with the investment.\nThe decisions of \"A\" Bench of Chennai ITAT

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

2)(iii) is Rs.5,53,878/-\nand made a request to accept accordingly.\n25.2. The A/R has explained in various ways with logic but the related\nexpenses including interest on loans are indivisible and no way can be\nconcluded that there is no direct involvement of loan with the investment.\nThe decisions of \"A\" Bench of Chennai ITAT

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10(2) are that gift shall be made by HUF\nonly to its members and that too out of its income. The Appellant has miserably\nfailed to satisfy both the conditions. I have not been referred to any other evidence\nand I think that it would be difficult to hold upon this oral evidence 'assessee is\nthe member

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10 of 30 I.T.A. No.: 1021/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. has been rightly taxed by the Department under Section 56 of the Act.' The appellant has sought to distinguish its case from that of Totgars’ on the ground that Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. was engaged in the business of marketing of agricultural produce

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

iii) while arriving at book profit under section 115JB of the Art without appreciating that provisions of subsection (2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance by the Ld. AO as per Rule 8D did not find place in clause (f) of Section 115JB. 4.1 On the farts and in the circumstances of the case

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

iii) while arriving at book profit under section 115JB of the Art without appreciating that provisions of subsection (2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance by the Ld. AO as per Rule 8D did not find place in clause (f) of Section 115JB. 4.1 On the farts and in the circumstances of the case

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

disallow the exemption granted u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act was not justified. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) is, therefore quashed.” In the present case also, the assessee has surplus approximately 53.65% of receipts for the purpose of future application which was accumulated in order to set up schools and educational institutions after applying

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

iii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating the facts that section 2(22)(e) of the Act, does not state to take higher peak balance of loan amount as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company. (iv) That on the facts & circumstances

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under