APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

2(15) Section 11(4), 11(4A), 13(8) and Circular No. 11 of 2008, alleged that the meetings, conferences and seminars held by the assessee were in the nature of business and the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce and business for a cess, fee or any other consideration and thus has earned profit from these

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

2(15) Section 11(4), 11(4A), 13(8) and Circular No. 11 of 2008, alleged that the meetings, conferences and seminars held by the assessee were in the nature of business and the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce and business for a cess, fee or any other consideration and thus has earned profit from these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

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

disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

13. In so far as disallowance of Rs.2,90,37,490/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, we find that before the lower authorities the assessee had raised the plea that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since the assessee was 7 M/s UCO Bank a dealer in shares although in its Balance Sheet, shares were disclosed under

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

13. In so far as disallowance of Rs.2,90,37,4901- under Rule 80(2)(iii) is concerned, we find that before the lower authorities the assessee had raised the plea that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since the assessee was a dealer in shares although in its Balance Sheet, shares were disclosed under the head "Investments". We find

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]

2% u/s 194C whereas as a matter of fact, TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. Clause (d) of the proviso to section 43(5) provides that 'an eligible transaction in Clause (d) of the proviso to section 43(5) provides that 'an eligible transaction in Clause (d) of the proviso to section 43(5) provides that 'an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in clause (ac) of section 2

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method

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 14A of the Act. 12. The AO computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as follows: ½% of the average investments of Rs.8418,06,46,657= Rs.4,20,90,323/-. 13

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13. What Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which was though not specifically argued and canvassed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, envisages is that such interest or dividend earned by an assessee co-operative society should be out of the investments with any other co-operative society. The words Cooperative Banks are missing in clause (d) of subsection

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]

disallowed and suo-moto added back by the assessee in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) while computing "Income under the head Business". However, according to assessee, since the said CSR contribution comprised of donation made to registered charitable trust, it was legally entitled to claim deduction under Section 80G of the Act to arrive at the "Total

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13(2) of the Act. On question put by AO, the assessee submitted that three mutawali were appointed since 1988 by the order of Board of Wakf estate and also as per Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court order dated 22.12.1961. So no stranger shall be appointed as mutawali till lineal descendant of Wakf Lt.Panchi Bibi are there. However, AO disregarded

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

Section 50." 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

Section 50." 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries