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

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10(23C). In the communication, it was proposed to disallow the entire income of Rs. 26,65,66,937/- as exemption

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.

26 Taxman.com 342, held that it is only where the assessee offers a disallowance under section 14A, the AO is required to record satisfaction. When no expenditure is offered by the assessee, the AO need not record such satisfaction. 5.1 It was submitted by the ld. A.R. that as per the provisions of section 14A(3), the provisions

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. Heard and perused the record. The Hon’ble Third Member in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 supra held that the disallowance of 1% as directed by the CIT-A of the exempt income is fair and reasonable. The order of the Hon’ble Third Member was also followed by the CIT-A-XXIV in assessee

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

disallowance was not made by the AO in terms of Section 92A of the Act. He submitted that it was not a case where the AO had pointed out any defect in the arm’s length value of the specified domestic transactions undertaken by the eligible unit which could have enabled him to estimate the arm’s length value

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

10. The AO was of the view that the Assessee has not denied that it had incurred expenditure in earning exempt income and proceeded to compute the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (Rules). The AO has not in his order explained the reasons why the aforesaid amount of disallowance under

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

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

10 of 22 15. During the year under consideration, one of the two captive power plants namely Diesel Generating Power Unit had suffered a loss, whereas the other Captive Power Plant, namely Turbine Generating Power Unit had earned profit. In the return of income, the assessee-company had claimed deduction under section 80IA in respect of profit of Turbine Generating

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

10(34) of the Act in its return of income for the year under consideration. In earning the aforesaid dividend income, the respondent incurred an aggregate expenditure of Rs. 44,450 which was also certified by the tax auditors in Form No. 3CD (placed at pages 14 to 38 (relevant page 20 of the Paper book). In its return

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)

26,864/- c. Surplus on investment Rs.39,63,524/- Total Rs.94,68,238/- Expenses claimed are as under: a. Donation Rs.1,00,00,000/- b. Expenses for running school Rs. 6,98,016/- c. Service Charges Rs. 66,908/- d. Misc. Expenses Rs. 4,404/- e. Auditor Remuneration Rs. 6,618/- Total Rs.1,07,75,946/- 3.1. Assessee claimed that

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

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which