DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

disallowance confirmed in appeal. In the circumstances to adjudicate the present appeal, we need to only examine whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the conditions prescribed in Section 80IB(10) of the Act were fulfilled by the assessee and whether the deduction u/s 80IB(10) could be allowed only in respect of profits of Phase

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.D. ESTATES & RESOURCES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. “ 5. When the case was called up for hearing, it was found that the Learned CIT/ DR had sought adjournment for 15 cases out of 27 cases listed for hearing. The Learned AR stated that the issue under dispute is settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

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

section 14A = 90,099+ (1 % of Rs.45,30,38,502) = 90,099 + 45,30,385 = 46,20,484 The above calculation comprised of two parts - one is proportionate amount of disallowance of salary of investment department and the other is 1 % of tax-free income. 10

ACIT,CIR-27(1), KOLKATA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. CONTAI MUNICIPALITY HATABARI, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cir-27 (1), Haldia Vs Contai Municipality Pan: Aaalc0376M (Appellant) (Respondent)

20) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Appellant also referred to Guwahati ITAT in the case of Tamchikusuk v. Addl. CIT, ITA No.76jGauj2010, judgment dated 15.05.2015 to contend that disallowances made under section 43B are completely tax neutral in as much as whatever is the income arrived at after making these disallowances are all exempt under section 10

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

20,11,666/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The AO further disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,03,67,422/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.30,07,706/- (Rs.50,19,372 – Rs.20,11,666 and totaling to Rs. 1,33,75,128/- u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D and added the same to the total income

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

disallowance on the following points:- a) The project undertaken was an integrated township project and it was not only a housing project according to schedule-1 of the agreement with the Government Agency ADDA. Thus, the claim of the assessee that just because they had 9 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd prepared separate sanction

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

20. According to us, the fact that high profits were earned by the eligible unit in comparison to other businesses by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the deduction claimed u/s 80IE was excessive. In this regard, it would first be relevant to examine the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 80-IA of the Act which empowers

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of interest under section 14A while deciding Ground No. 1 involved in this appeal of the assessee. Consequently this ground is treated as allowed. 13. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 3 relating to the assessee’s claim for allowing MAT credit against

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

20,000/- out of business expenditure claimed in business activity cannot be considered for being incurred for this earning of tax free income of above nature. In view of this disallowance so made under section 14A of `.2O,OOO/- is deleted. Not only that the & CO No.30/Kol/2014 M/s. Philips Carbon Black Ltd CIT(A) directed the A.O. to consider

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-. 18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY 2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the finding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-. 18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY 2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the finding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEENLOK ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

20,000/- u/s 14A. In view of it, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs.2,42,70,464/- u/s 14A. This ground of appeal is allowed”. 5. The ld. D.R., at the outset, submitted that the issue involved in Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to the disallowance under section 14A on account

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

20 of the Paper book). In its return of income for the year under consideration besides claiming the aforesaid dividend income as exempt from tax, the respondent also considered the said amount as disallowable under section 14A of the Act while computing its taxable income under the provisions of the Act other than section 115JB thereof as also while computing