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

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)

section 10(22) of the Act. According to the aforesaid assessment year, the Ld. AO has considered the claim of the assessee of its running educational institution and has allowed the claim made by the assessee. However, considering the submission made by the assessee. The Ld. AO concluded adversely and disallowed

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

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

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

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 17 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development

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

22-04-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 11 -5 -2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM These appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee arise out of the separate orders of the Learned CIT(A), VIII, Kolkata in Appeal No. 287/CIT(A)- VIII/Kol/11-12 dated 20.6.2012 for Asst Year 2004-05 and Appeal No. 286/CIT(A)- VIII/Kol/11-12 dated 20.6.2012 for Asst

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

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

10. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the Assessee was a registered and beneficial shareholder of shares of M/S.Mega Resources Ltd., that conferred voting rights of only 1.7%. It is only this share holding that has to be considered for applying the first limb of Section 2(22

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

10,000/- as loan from the said subsidiary company. The above fact also corroborated from the Clause No.31(a) of the tax audit report of the assessee company where loan from subsidiary had been duly disclosed. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and treated the said loan as deemed dividend and made

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

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

10,000/- as loan from the said subsidiary\ncompany. The above fact also corroborated from the Clause No.31(a) of\nthe tax audit report of the assessee company where loan from subsidiary\nhad been duly disclosed. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of\nsection 2(22)(e) of the Act and treated the said loan as deemed dividend\nand made

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.

section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted in this case. Even otherwise, this addition was not made by the Assessing Officer on account of any incriminating material found during the search action. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this respect. 9. Ground No.2 – Vide Ground No.2, the revenue

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

10,000/- was made in terms of section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and the disallowance of expenses of' Rs.14.28,000/- was made in terms of section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2) (iii) and the same therefore cannot be added under clause (f) to the Explanation to section 11SJB of the Act. The appellant submits

M/S. CASTRON TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, HQRS.-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

10% of the issued Share- capital: of the "Shraddha-Vyapaar Private Limited" was a private limited company in which public were not substantially interested and the substantial part of the business of "Shraddha Vyapaar Private Limited" was not money lending and also "Shraddha Vyapaar Private Limited" had accumulated profit of Rs.87,14,672 on 31.03.2012. Since all the conditions

DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.667/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Circle-1 Kolkata Vs. M/S The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. 10, Clive Row, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 9780 F (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca Revenue/Department By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) In Appeal No.259/Cc-Vii/Cit(A)C-I/10-11, Dated 31.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,30,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 2(22)(E). 2.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(I)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) In Respect Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi For An Amount Of Rs.1,32,86,580/-. 3.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,30,70,800/- Made On Account Of Gratuity Liability. 4.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,23,842/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Modify & Later Any Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Of This Case.”

10% of the voting power in the lending company, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is not attracted in its case. Therefore, considering the factual position, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the order passed

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. DY.DIT(E)-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Govinddeo Educational Ddit, Exemption Circle-1, Institute Kolkata Vs. 78, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aabts6053J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(22) of the Act. In the aforesaid assessment years, the Ld. AO has considered the claim of the assessee of it running educational institutions and has allowed the claim made by the assessee. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, ld. AO concluded adversely and disallowed

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

10% of equity shares. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) read as under:- "any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan

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

10. Ground Nos. 5 to 7 of the Revenue’s appeal are directed against the ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the addition of Rs.22,47,63,955/- made by the AO u/s 80-IE of the Act. Brief facts of the case as discerned from the orders of the authorities below are that, in the return of income

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

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

22)(e) of Rs. 1,25,02,162/ -. 6.1. The AO has stated the following in support of the disallowance: 1.1 "The assessee received total loan/advance of Rs. 1,25,02,162/- from M/ s Switz Foods Pvt. Ltd. on different dates during the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. A copy of such transactions held between the Assessee Company