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

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

34)] during the year. The assessee has disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-\nu/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 considering the dividend and investment made\nin other than the subsidiary companies. But the provisions laid down in\nRule-8D vide the Clauses-(i), (ii) & (Hi) does not suggest the same. According\nto the assessee the company has not incurred any direct expenditures

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

34)] during the year. The assessee has disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-\nu/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 considering the dividend and investment made\nin other than the subsidiary companies. But the provisions laid down in\nRule-8D vide the Clauses-(i), (ii) & (Hi) does not suggest the same. According\nto the assessee the company has not incurred any direct expenditures

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

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

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

34)] during the year. The assessee has disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-\nu/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 considering the dividend and investment made\nin other than the subsidiary companies. But the provisions laid down in\nRule-8D vide the Clauses-(i), (ii) & (Hi) does not suggest the same. According\nto the assessee the company has not incurred any direct expenditures

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

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

34)] during the year. The assessee has disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-\nu/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 considering the dividend and investment made\nin other than the subsidiary companies. But the provisions laid down in\nRule-8D vide the Clauses-(i), (ii) & (Hi) does not suggest the same. According\nto the assessee the company has not incurred any direct expenditures

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

BISWANATH HOSIERY MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

10(34) of the Act by the assessee. However, the assessee had suo moto disallowed Rs.5,350/- as expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee had only considered its investments in the scrips of 'M/s Kamala Tea Ltd.', 'M/s Bala Techno Synthetics Limited', 'M/s Sundaram Finance Limited', 'M/s Unispin India Limited' & 'M/s West

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

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 as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

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 as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 144 of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. case. Therefore

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 144 of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. case. Therefore