M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. 10 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 We support our contention on the basis of various judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that the difference between the market rate of shares and the rate at which shares are issued to the employees under ESOS, is allowable as expenditure

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 35D of I.T. Act, 1961 and it is observed that the said expenditure does not qualify for deduction either u/s.36(2) or 37(1) as the said unit is not yet operational during this year. Further, the details of professional activities done by Borel & Barbey according to the work sheet filed by the assessee during the course of hearing

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 35D of I.T. Act, 1961 and it is observed that the said expenditure does not qualify for deduction either u/s.36(2) or 37(1) as the said unit is not yet operational during this year. Further, the details of professional activities done by Borel & Barbey according to the work sheet filed by the assessee during the course of hearing

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

10. Further the Ld. A.R. contended that CSR expenses are required to be mandatorily incurred by companies as per section 135 of Companies Act and accepted the fact that the assessee was aware that deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, was not available from assessment year 2015-16 as per Explanation 2 to Section 37

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10 applies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure debited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies Act as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only under clause (iii) of Rule

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

37,830/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of Rs.64,65,80,087/- under section 115JB of the Act. In the said return, dividend income of Rs.4,89,391/- was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act by the assessee. In relation thereto, the assessee disallowed

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10 applies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure debited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies Act as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only under clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

disallowed above expenditure in terms of Explanation to section 37(1) in view of Circular No. 5 of 2012; wherein CBDT referred to amendment to 'Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002', brought from 10

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

disallowed above expenditure in terms of Explanation to section 37(1) in view of Circular No. 5 of 2012; wherein CBDT referred to amendment to 'Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002', brought from 10

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

section 14A of the I.T Act, 1961.” 2. Hon’ble President, ITAT nominated Shri G.D Agarwa, Hon’ble Vice President (AZ)KZ) as Third Member. The Hon’ble Third Member vide his order dated 27.05.2011 has concurred with the findings of ld. Accountant Member by observing as under:- “7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

10,51,944/- which was disallowed by the ld AO on the ground that the assessee had not proved the increase in installed capacity as warranted in the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground