M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18 November 2004 is of no consequence for the matter under consideration and no notice at all was issued under section 143(2) of the Act after filing the return of income in response

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, we find that the assesse has earned an amount of Rs.30,08,052/- by way of dividend and offered disallowance on its own of Rs.329/- under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rs. 20,11,666/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The AO further disallowed an amount

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

3) for assessment year 2007-08 that no disallowance on account of interest was made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A even in the assessment year 2007-08 thereby accepting that there was no interest expenditure incurred by the assessee for purchase of shares. He contended that since the investment made by the assessee-company in the shares

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

144 of the Act read with Rule BD of the Rules as the basic intention behind introduction of section 14A itself is only to disallow the expenditure incurred for earning an income which does not form part of the total income. " (emphasis supplied) The aforesaid principal has also been upheld in the following cases: • REI Agro Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

144 as against Rs 14,72,87,857 in the beginning of the year. This fact, according to the Assessing Officer, showed that “apart from the loan of Rs 36 crores under consideration, the assessee had granted loan to Datex India even in the earlier years”. It was also noted that, in the year before us, no provision was made

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

3 of the Revenue’s appeal. 33. Grounds No. 4 & 5 of the Revenue’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal involved a common issue relating to the disallowance of Rs.6,26,987/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VATICAN COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

144. In case (a) and case (b] the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1)(a) had been issued - CIT v.Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P)Ltd., [2007J 161 Taxman

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 144 of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2005, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.8,79,63,595/- after making inter alia trading addition of Rs.5,09,37,980/- by estimating the income of the assessee by applying the higher rate of 4.87%. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred

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)

section 14A r.w.r 8D(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 the AO made disallowance of Rs. 63,31,460/- and added the same to the total income of assessee. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. The CIT-A by placing reliance on an order of Kolkata Bench (ITAT, Kolkata) in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

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

144, 153. ITA Nos.1649/K/2010, CO No. 162/K/2010 10 & ITA No. 1676/K/2010 Sanjay Jaiswal-A-AM On an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that one more opportunity could be given to the assessee to file evidence and held that ground

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee

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

disallowance is governed as per the provisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management services and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision enumerated in section 14A.\" 7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A mandate that the onus in on the AO to justify the basis for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Appellant in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under Act. 3.e) The impugned order has further erred in not abiding

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata\nTrib) directed the Ld. AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by considering the investments which actually\nyielded dividend income to the assessee for computing disallowance\nunder Section 14A of the Act and held that since the disallowance so\nworked out amounted to lower than the sum offered for disallowance

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

section 37(1) is not attracted. In view of the above, it is to be held that the disallowance of Rs.6,55,30,392/- as made by the AO in the impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore on the facts of the case the addition of Rs.6,55,30,392/- is deleted.” 3 I.T.A No.1531/Kol/2017 M/s. Rngta Mines

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

144 ITD 141 (Kolkata\nTrib) directed the Ld. AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by considering the investments which actually\nyielded dividend income to the assessee for computing disallowance\nunder Section 14A of the Act and held that since the disallowance so\nworked out amounted to lower than the sum offered for disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

3. Both parties reiterated their respective pleadings against and in support of the CIT(A) directions under challenge. We notice in this backdrop that the instant issue of section 14A r.w.r. 8D disallowance for the purpose of section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment