UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

disallowance in one year will complicate the issue in other years also. The assessee also submitted before AO that reopening was also wrong regarding Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 the non-accounting of income on loan since whether interest is to be charged or not on a loan is a business decision to be taken by Management

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

disallowance in one year will complicate the issue in other years also. The assessee also submitted before AO that reopening was also wrong regarding Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 the non-accounting of income on loan since whether interest is to be charged or not on a loan is a business decision to be taken by Management

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

disallowance in one year will complicate the issue in other years also. The assessee also submitted before AO that reopening was also wrong regarding Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 the non-accounting of income on loan since whether interest is to be charged or not on a loan is a business decision to be taken by Management

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119 of the Act\nclarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for\ndisallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a\nparticular year has not earned any exempt income. The ld.\nCIT(Appeals) also mentioned that the Board clarified that the usage\nof term 'includible' in the heading to section

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowance u/s 14A would be made. Thus in the light of above, Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its powers under section 119

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "119", "80P", "80AC", "139", "143(1)", "143(1)(a)", "143(1)(a)(v)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "142(1)", "148", "80-IA", "80-1AB", "80-IB", "80-IC", "80-ID", "80-IE", "10AA", "80A" ], "issues": "Whether the AO-CPC could disallow

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

119 41. In my opinion the said interest of Rs.28,84,937/- represents interest paid on borrowed capital which used for acquiring investments in shares which yielded the appellant tax exempt dividend and capital gains income and therefore the same was disallowable u/s 14A of the Act. As regards administrative expenses I find that the aggregate administrative expenses were only

I.T.O WD - 4(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAIMA PROJECT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

119/-, the Assessing Officer finally made a disallowance to that extent thereby making addition of Rs.57.68 lakhs. 4. The addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of a further disallowance made under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

DCIT,CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER . S. JAMUMBDER &CO,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

M/S. ELCON ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallow the appellant's claim for the benefit of Section 115BBA\nwhen processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n8.6 Further, it is noted that Section 119

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowance was based on the information received from the Forward Markets Commissions(FMC) through I&CI wing that the assessee company had taken accommodation entries in form of bogus losses through NMCE and the same was independently adjudicated. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition