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

DDIT (E) - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCTS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Ddit(E)-I, 5Th Floor, V/S. Sasha Association For 10B, Middleton Row, Craft Products Kolkata-700 071 Ic, Chahatu Babu Lane, Kolkata-700 014 [Pan No.Aabts 5580 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Before us both the parties relied on the orders of Authorities Below as favourable to them. From the facts of the case, we find that AO disallowed the exemption benefit available to the assessee in Section 11

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 11(4A) of the Act. Accordingly the AO disallowed the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred

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

LAKSHMI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (E) - II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 11; and (iii) donations aggregating to Rs.14,050/- were disallowed. I.T.A. Nos. 382, 383, 384, 385, 386 & 396/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 5

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 11, the amount kept under corpus fund has been exempted in the year of receipt. Since investment in mutual fund is a valid mode of investment u/s.11(5), there is always the possibility to incur gain or loss. In case of the investments, the corpus fund is reduced. On the other hand, the profit out of the 5 Oriental

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.

disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,03,67,422/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.30,07,706/- (Rs.50,19,372 – Rs.20,11,666 and totaling to Rs. 1,33,75,128/- u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D and added the same to the total income of assessee. The assesse 1 I.T.A No. 2271/Kol/2017 M/s. Ashiana Housing Limited

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

section 11(1) of the Act, therefore, AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs.2,84,67,351/-. 5. On appeal

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]

11. According to Ld. A.R. when the Parliament has expressly made ‘two’ exceptions in Section 80G of the Act in respect of donation classified as CSR expenses incurred by an assessee company u/s 135(5) of the Companies Act, the other donation which are classified as CSR expenses to any other Fund or Institution as provided in sub-clause

INDIAN LEATHER TECHNOLOGISTS' ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of brought forward of excess of expenditure amounting to Rs.61,23,380/- over income with the income of AY 2015-16. Before the Ld. CIT(E) assessee’s submission was that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad & Co. Pvt. Ltd., supra is inapplicable to the assessee

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5 of 10 Taxman.com.227), he confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while challenging the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of interest under section 14A read with Rule 8D has mainly

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

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

disallowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act just on the basis of loan provided to the wife of the trustee without checking the utilization of the loan given by the assessee. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) on merits submitted as under : a) The advance was given to Dr. M Ghosh to buy property at Alipore, Kolkata

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

disallowable under year and remaining for furnishing the section 43B of the outstanding as on the return of income of Income tax Act, last day of the the previous year 1961 (Rs) previous year (Rs) under section 139(1) (Rs) RE Cess PE cess Re Cess PE cess `RE cess PE cess RE cess PE cess

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

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

disallowing the donation paid of Rs. 18,30,000/- to another trust. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds :- “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed was in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. 02. For that

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

11 A.Y. 2013-2014 M/s. TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Limited 9. As regards the Ground No. 4, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to disallowance under section 14A is also covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2017 for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 (supra), wherein the disallowance made under section 14A was deleted

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

11 of 22 principle of consistency, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 3. 17. Ground No. 4 of the revenue’s appeal and ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 involve a common issue relating to the disallowance under