M/S TCG LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); (b) “recognised stock exchange” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to clause (5) of section 43; (c) “scheduled bank” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ii) of the Explanation to clause (viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36.” Page

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2, the assessee has also pointed out that there is some error in calculation of amount. The correct amount is Rs.11,46,09,110/- instead of Assessment Years: 2007-2008, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2014-2015 The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited Rs.13,66,09,110/-. We note that the issue needs to be verified by the ld. Assessing

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2, the assessee has also pointed out that there is some error in calculation of amount. The correct amount is Rs.11,46,09,110/- instead of Assessment Years: 2007-2008, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2014-2015 The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited Rs.13,66,09,110/-. We note that the issue needs to be verified by the ld. Assessing

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2, the assessee has also pointed out that there is some error in calculation of amount. The correct amount is Rs.11,46,09,110/- instead of Assessment Years: 2007-2008, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2014-2015 The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited Rs.13,66,09,110/-. We note that the issue needs to be verified by the ld. Assessing

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2, the assessee has also pointed out that there is some error in calculation of amount. The correct amount is Rs.11,46,09,110/- instead of Assessment Years: 2007-2008, 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2014-2015 The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited Rs.13,66,09,110/-. We note that the issue needs to be verified by the ld. Assessing

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.68,81,145

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.68,81,145

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of interest paid on TDS u/s. 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,80,495/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin & Harris Private Limited Vs. CIT and also the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of interest paid on TDS u/s. 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,80,495/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Martin & Harris Private Limited Vs. CIT and also the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investment

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. 14. In the present case the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit stating that against the order of the CIT (Appeals) an appeal was filed before the Income

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.\nGround Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not\nappreciating the fact that the expenses of ₹55,71,982/- incurred by the\nassessee to settle the disputes in connection with his sold land with\nthird parties before its sale for paving way for easy transfer

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC)] and also in the same assessee’s case in the matter reported in 147 taxmann.com 285 (SC). As per the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, education cess claimed by the assessee company u/s 37(1) of the Act was to be disallowed since as per Explanation 3 to Section

M/S. SWAGAT TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA (FORMERLY D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

2)(iii) i.e. only Rs.56,043/-. He therefore pleaded that the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.5,92,707/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D be restricted to Rs.56,043/- and balance disallowance may be deleted. 9. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowed

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

145 taxmann.com 506 (Kol), held as follows:- “23. In the instant case, the AO, while examining the evidences of receipt of IT services, did not make any adverse comment under section 37 of the I.T. Act but he only adopted the ALP adjustment of Rs. 4,10,08,010/- directed by the TPO because the order

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

145 taxmann.com 506 (Kol), held as follows:- “23. In the instant case, the AO, while examining the evidences of receipt of IT services, did not make any adverse comment under section 37 of the I.T. Act but he only adopted the ALP adjustment of Rs. 4,10,08,010/- directed by the TPO because the order

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

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017