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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

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]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

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]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

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

M/S PORTSIDE ESTATES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1150/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08

13% of shareholding”. ii) The CIT(A) was of the view that the five holding companies of which one of the holding companies of the assessee are claimed to be listed while the provision requires that the immediate subsidiary company to be listed company. According to CIT(A), “section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) provides exception only for any company

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)

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

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

C) Total Assets (Rs. Lacs) As on 31/3/06 As on 1/4/05 Fixed Assets 28219.99 29805.34 Investments 2906.53 2035.95 Current Assets, Loans & Advances 39177.06 34593.78 Miscellaneous Expenditure 129.37 143.83 Total 70432.95 66578.90 Therefore, Average Total Assets Rs. 68505.92 lacs Amount disallowable as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) (AxB)/C Rs. 110.56 lacs Amount disallowable as per Rule 8D(2

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

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. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 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

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

2 St.Joseph’s Convent Chandannagar Education Society A.Yr.2009-10 Dispensary. The Learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that a sum of Rs. 6,76,132/- was received by the assessee society as donation from Society of St. Joseph of Cluny, Kolkata for building construction at Kanchrapara and the assessee society gave donation

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

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that the assessee has acquired shares in consideration for sale of his proprietary concern as a assessee has acquired shares in consideration for sale of his proprietary concern as a assessee has acquired shares in consideration for sale of his proprietary concern as a growing concern. He pointed that

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

C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Camellia House, 14, Income Tax, circle-11, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata- Aayakar Bhawan, P/7 700 019 Chowringhee Road, [PAN No.AAACL 5002 E] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.N. Rajendran, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर

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

13. Before CIT(A), with regard to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, the Assessee pointed out that no part of the borrowed funds were utilized in making investment in shares, bonds and unit of mutual funds which yield the tax free income. The Assessee pointed out that it's owned funds i.e. aggregate of capital

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. The CIT(A) rightly held that it is not relevant whether any return of income was filed by the assessee prior

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

C) such allowance or accommodation to mutwalli is not hit by the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 IV. For that the Ld. C.I.T.(A) grossly erred both in law and in fact in confirming addition of Rs.14,11,200/- as deemed income on the alleged ground that provisions