INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowed the ITA No.2620/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2010-11 ITO Wd-12(1), Kol. vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 same under section 40A(3) of the Act on account of non-service of notice under section 133

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

133 and submitted that the AO has invoked the provision of section 14A of the Act without recording the satisfaction and without having any defect in the accounts of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the company duly submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income and hence there cannot be any disallowance

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

133 and submitted that the AO has invoked the provision of section 14A of the Act without recording the satisfaction and without having any defect in the accounts of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the company duly submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income and hence there cannot be any disallowance

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

133 and submitted that the AO has invoked the provision of section 14A of the Act without recording the satisfaction and without having any defect in the accounts of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the company duly submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income and hence there cannot be any disallowance

KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 40A(3) of the Act was a technical disallowance for violation of specific provisions of Income Tax Act. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri Tribunal in the case of Vijaykumar P. Desai (Individual & HUF) (supra), wherein the Tribunal

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivarshi Construction

SHRI DINESH KUMAR GHOSH ,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38, , MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2

section 40A(3) of the Act was a technical disallowance for violation of specific provisions of Income Tax Act. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijaykumar P. Desai (Individual & HUF) (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "6. We find that

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

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made as the no dividend was received, which violates Departmental Circular No. 5/2014 [F. No. 225/182/2013-ITA-II]. Further, fresh shares were purchased as apparent from Note 12 of balance sheet. (iv) The 'Exceptional Item' of Rs.1.84 crs at Note-24 of P&L account. As VRS payment as referred has already been allowed u/s.35DDA

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A read with rule 8D has prescribed computation for such disallowance any other approximation is not acceptable. Moreover, the assessee has also given an another complex calculation on a number of basis viz loan found used on closing balance basis as on 31.03.09, Loan found used on average basis as on 31.03.09 and on direct loan used for investment

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that