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

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

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

disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Your honour the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed its above rulings in subsequent cases, including CIT v. Oil Industry Development Board, reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 326 (SC) & PCIT-2 v.v Caraf Builders & Constructions (P) Ltd, reported in [2019] 112

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

sections 48, 49 and 50 and sec. 112 was considered and the view expressed by the Tribunal has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) to give relief to the assessee. The Ld. DR could not controvert the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any material before us or any other precedent to upset the decision relied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

M/S. C D EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

112,786/- from the partnership firm under clause (ii) of Explanation (1) to Section 115JB of the Act. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are therefore dismissed. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, the decision

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ROSSELL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 14A of the Act for the subsequent assessment year 2010-11 which was duly accepted by the assessing officer. 4. The assessee also submitted the details of investment made by the assessee during the year as detailed under : Sl.No Particulars Amount (Rs) 1 Purchase of 83,305 equity shares of 12,50,00805 ₹1/- each fully paid

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

section 40(a)(ii) education cess disallowance of Rs. 8,60,379/- as a business expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act since incurred only and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Learned CIT-DR vehemently contended that the impugned 1535 days' delay in filing of the instant appeal has not been properly explained as attributable to circumstances

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowing the entire management fee/brand royalty on the ground that no service was rendered/no benefit was received and treating its ALP at NIL. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the necessary evidence of receipt of services and the detailed clarification thereon regarding the nature of benefit received by the appellant-company in relation to its business

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowing the entire management fee/brand royalty on the ground that no service was rendered/no benefit was received and treating its ALP at NIL. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the necessary evidence of receipt of services and the detailed clarification thereon regarding the nature of benefit received by the appellant-company in relation to its business

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team has pointed out certain objections during the course of audit before the ld. Assessing Officer and then ld. Assessing Officer proposed these issues to the ld. PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We have also examined the audit objections raised by the audit

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

disallowance made by the AO treating the impugned amount of Rs. 54,23,955/ amount of Rs. 54,23,955/- for A.Y 2009-10 as contingent and notional loss is not tional loss is not justified and that the loss incurred to the assessee on account of five unexpired justified and that the loss incurred to the assessee on account

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

section 2(24)(x). 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)-21/Kolkata erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,60,032/- without considering CBDT's circular no. 22/2015 on the issue of allowability of employees contribution to PF. 8 The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-21/Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the disallowance