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

11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance under 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

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

11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance under 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

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

11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance under 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

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

11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance under 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

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

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

11 or section 12 apply". Under the provisions of section 14A no 'deduction is to be allowed in respect of' expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. Since the issue of expenditure related to dividend income, falling under section 10 it is clear that the two provisions

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 14A is liable to be made as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. It is, however, observed that this aspect has already been considered by the Tribunal while deciding a similar issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, as is evident from paras 11 to 13 of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.2018, which

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

11, 2019 O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President:- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata dated 09.02.2018. 2. The common issue raised in Grounds No. 1 & 2 relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance of Rs.1

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

2% u/s 194C whereas as a matter of fact, TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction

M/S. SAHARA UTSARGA WELFARE SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E), CIRCLE - 1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) [Virtual Court Hearing] Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Sahara Utsrga Welfare Society…………………….................................………………...…......Appellant Michael Nagar Kalibari Sarani Kolkata – 700 133 [Pan : Aadts 6744 E] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), Circle-1, Kolkata………….........….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21St, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 11 of the Act. 4. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this claim of the assessee. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this claim of the assessee. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this claim of the assessee. 5. Ground No. 2 is against the ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Now, the Explanation 2 below section 28 of the Act provides that where speculative Now, the Explanation 2 below section 28 of the Act provides that where speculative Now, the Explanation 2 below section 28 of the Act provides that where speculative transactions earned by an assessee are of such nature as to constitute a transactions earned

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

2) of section 14A. Prior to that, the assessing was free to adopt any reasonable and acceptable method. 14. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 (P&H) has also held that disallowance under section 14A could not stand where it was found that for earning exempted income

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

Section 14A of the Act of Rs.54,50,26,415. 11. The AO computed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11,200/- as deemed income on the alleged ground that provisions for rent free accommodation for the mutwallis is it by the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Act without considering that the mutwallis were authorized under the mandatory rule framed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in respect of the assessee

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11 as under: "To say that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of section 80P would not be correct because one needs to give weightage to the words 'the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business' attributable to tope of the activities specified in section 80P(2)(a). The words the whole