DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

disallowance can be made as per Section 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

disallowance can be made as per Section 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

disallowance can be made as per Section 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127

NEW INDIA RETAILING & INVESTMENT LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

127/- In the said return, dividend income of Rs.1,62,44,179/- earned during the year under consideration was claimed to be exempt by the assessee-company. A disallowance of Rs.14,75,743/- on account of interest and other expenses incurred in relation to the said exempt income was also offered by the assessee-company under section

M/S A.S. SYNDICATE WAREHOUSING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD -11(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 14A for the assessment years prior to assessment year 2008-09, the sum has to be restricted to 1% of exempt income. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly to disallow 1% of exempt income. We also direct the Assessing Officer to disallow a sum of Rs.25,127

VINEET MOHAN GUPTA,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 57(iii) of the Act was discussed and dealt with and on the basis of facts and legality involved in the case of the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the disallowance of Rs.29,39,127

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

127 of the Act dated 20.03.2012. After the transfer of files to Kolkata jurisdiction, notices u/s. 153A were issued on the assessee on 15.05.2012. In compliance of the said notices, assessee filed its return on 12.06.2012 and the assessment was completed vide order dated 31.03.2014 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3). 4.1. Against both the assessment orders

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

127, 154, 155 and 155D in Paper book. Mr. Khaitan thereafter comes to quantification aspect of the impugned disallowance. He cites this tribunal’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 144 ITD 141 as confirmed in hon’ble jurisdictional high court holding that only dividend income yielding investments are to be taken for consideration than

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

127, 154, 155 and 155D in Paper book. Mr. Khaitan thereafter comes to quantification aspect of the impugned disallowance. He cites this tribunal’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 144 ITD 141 as confirmed in hon’ble jurisdictional high court holding that only dividend income yielding investments are to be taken for consideration than

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

ABHILASH TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

M/S COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

TARASAFE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure