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

10(34) of the Income Tax Act and\naccordingly is not satisfactory in accordance with the provision of 14A of the\nIncome Tax Act.\nThe Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs\nCIT (339 1TR 319), disallowance under section 14A can indeed be made. In\nDhanuka's case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed

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

10(34) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly is not satisfactory in accordance with the provision of 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs CIT (339 ITR 319), disallowance under section 14A can indeed be made. In Dhanuka's case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed

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

10(34) of the Income Tax Act and\naccordingly is not satisfactory in accordance with the provision of 14A of the\nIncome Tax Act.\nThe Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs\nCIT (339 1TR 319), disallowance under section 14A can indeed be made. In\nDhanuka's case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed

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

10(34) of the Income Tax Act and\naccordingly is not satisfactory in accordance with the provision of 14A of the\nIncome Tax Act.\nThe Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka & Sons Vs\nCIT (339 1TR 319), disallowance under section 14A can indeed be made. In\nDhanuka's case (supra), Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IA. Aggrieved with the assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who held that the appellant did not fulfil the required conditions of section 80-IA and consequently was not eligible to get the deduction and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with

MAYURAKSHI GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, PBGB REGIONAL, ,SURI, BIRBHUM vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, SURI, SURI, BIRBHUM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1159/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund,………………………………………Appellant Pbgb Regional, Suri Birbhum-731101, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtm2580Q] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-3, Suri, Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara, Suri, Birbhum-731101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

disallowed in assessment year 2013-14. The said issue came up before the ITAT for assessment year 2013-14, wherein the assesese raised alternative plea of its correct taxable income for the first time and, therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee

M/S. PANCHIRAM NAHATA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

10%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has paid interest at a higher rate. 4(3). So far as the disallowance of expenses is concerned, it is submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has made an adhoc disallowance of 20% even when the assessee has maintained complete details of the expenditure and no discrepancy has been noticed

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

disallowance, does not have any application in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts

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

disallowance, does not have any application in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in considering capital gains amounting to Rs 1,36,025/- twice in the gross total income of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts

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

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

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

10. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 pertain to disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 44,09,000/-. On this issue, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. AO had actually made the disallowance of Rs. 64,35,109/- and had given the benefit of an amount of Rs. 20,28,109/- suo-moto disallowed by the assessee

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

10. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 pertain to disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 44,09,000/-. On this issue, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. AO had actually made the disallowance of Rs. 64,35,109/- and had given the benefit of an amount of Rs. 20,28,109/- suo-moto disallowed by the assessee

DCIT,CC-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. ARYAN MINING AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED, HIDE LANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Aryan Mining & Trading Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Corporation Limited, 110, Shantipally, 4 Th Floor, P-1, Hide Lane, Johar Building, Vs. Pin-700073, West Bengal Pin-700073, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadca7247B Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsian, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

20,32,46,910/-. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 05.10.2017 determining total Income of Rs. 26,86,43,300/- inter alia making the disallowance of CSR expenditure amounting