DIPAK KUMAR DEY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

disallowed the expenditure under the section. Omission to do so by the assessing officer was held as, resulting in the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, he exercised his powers u/s 263 of the Act, and revised the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and gave specific directions to the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

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]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

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 115JB of the 1. T.Act, 1961 for deleting the disallowance of Rs.108,45,17,830/- made while computing taxable income under normal computational provisions.” 38. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 30.12.2010 disallowed an amount of Rs.108,45,17,830/- on account of amortisation of premium paid for purchase of securities by observing in the assessment order

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd. 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6463N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “The main object of the appellant is with respect to auto parts and has no relation to dealings in real estate. In the case of Sultan Brothers

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

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

124 ТТJ 577 (Del)(SB) and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management\n(P) Ltd. 117 ITD 169 (SB) and also the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014\ndated 11.02.2014 and made the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule\n8D of the IT Rules read with section 14A of the Act at ₹31,58,93,400/-.\n7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on disputed additions and levying interest of Rs. 1,90,68,525/-, Rs. 13,34,79,675/- and Rs. 3,04,32,052/-respectively on the assessee by the AO whereas the assessee had filed a return of loss for Rs. 3,62,82,050/- well within the extended time of filing