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

5,53,878/-.\n11.5 We have considered the submissions made, gone through the\nfacts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).\nOnce the finding had been given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of\nsub-section (1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-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

5,53,878/-.\n11.5 We have considered the submissions made, gone through the\nfacts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).\nOnce the finding had been given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of\nsub-section (1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-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

5,53,878/-.\n11.5 We have considered the submissions made, gone through the\nfacts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).\nOnce the finding had been given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of\nsub-section (1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section

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

5,53,878/-.\n11.5 We have considered the submissions made, gone through the\nfacts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).\nOnce the finding had been given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the provisions of\nsub-section (1) of section 14A were applicable there was no justification\nfor disallowing sub-section

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowing the claim of set off was upheld by the successive appellate authorities on. On reference u/s 256(1) of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held that Section 10(27) of the Act excluded term only the income derived from a business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming. The said section did not exclude the business

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)

disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset pointed that on identical set of facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Shri Venkateshwara Educational Institute in ITA No. 145/Kol/2022 vide order dated 17.02.2023 had held that provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiad

RIDHI VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 4(1) Ridhi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700072, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr9858C Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

disallowance of ₹93,38,052/- as made by the learned AO in respect of future trading transactions treating the same as speculative loss and the ground no.2 and 3 are without prejudice ground. Ridhi Vincom Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 2013-14 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2013, declaring total income

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

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law by not deciding the issue on merits regarding the rate of interest charged as arm's length price. 6. Whether expenditure relatable to investment by way of inter-corporate deposits will attract disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 7. Whether on the facts

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

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

5(2). If that be so, income-tax thereon would be deductible at source under section 195(1). [Para 9.2] Page 10 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. Under the MOA, the assessee was responsible for paying to the seller non- resident, the amounts specified therein for the purchase

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

5(2). If that be so, income-tax thereon would be deductible at source under section 195(1). [Para 9.2] Page 10 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. Under the MOA, the assessee was responsible for paying to the seller non- resident, the amounts specified therein for the purchase

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule, there could not be any disallowance of the amount written off out of investments and, accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.4,22,26,000/- is deleted. Hence, Ground No.5 is allowed." We find that the revenue was not able to controvert the detailed findings of the Id CITA before us. Hence

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

5,350/- suo moto disallowed by the assessee. 7.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance. The relevant extract of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “6.2. Discussion and decision: 6.2.1. I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts in adding the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts in adding the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

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