ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

disallow expenditure under section 14A of the Act. This was not possible in section 154 proceedings as it was not an error or mistake apparent from the record. The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs “(emphasis supplied) The above decision of the Delhi High Court has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance without appreciating that the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(1) of the Act did not make any adverse comment under section 37 (1) of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the details of the said transaction submitted by the appellant to the Ld. TPO and subsequently

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 14A to investments made by the company in companies other than investment made in Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. as per follows: Particulars Rs. Opening investments (other than investment made in Aryan 1,43,00,500 Mining & Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Closing investments (other than investment in Aryan Mining & 1,67,70,500 Trading Corporation

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

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

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation on certain assets in the return of income filed before A.Y. 1999-2000. However later on by way of an application under section 154 of the Act dated 24.05.2001, the assessee company claimed depreciation

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

1-4-2007. Sub-section (2) to section 14A of the Act provides the procedure for determining 'the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act', if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

154 / 251 / 143(3) of the Act dated 01.04.2015 was passed. In the said order, the benefit of deduction of Rs. 2,95,24,689/- on account of brought forwards losses in the computation of book profits as per item No. (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act was not allowed for the reason that the unabsorbed

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

154 / 251 / 143(3) of the Act dated 01.04.2015 was passed. In the said order, the benefit of deduction of Rs. 2,95,24,689/- on account of brought forwards losses in the computation of book profits as per item No. (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act was not allowed for the reason that the unabsorbed

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194-I of the Act,\naddition on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s\n36(1)(via) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee\nfiled an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 07.03.2024\ndismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nPage | 6\nITA

SMITA S MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

1 )(a) is somewhat coterminous with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154..., In its literal sense, 'prima facie' means on the face of it, Hence, on the face of the return and the documents and accounts accompanying it, the deduction claimed must be inadmissible. Only then can ii be disallowed

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

154 (SC), has examined the issue of strategic investments and has held that even if an investment is of strategic nature, it does not grant any immunity to the assessee from the applicability of provisions of section 14A. The Apex Court thus held that expenditure incurred on earning of dividend income has to be disallowed. 2.4 The argument that since

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed under section 143(3). [Para 16] It followed that the effective and operative order was the one under section 143(3) and, therefore, the question of seeking rectification of the order under section 143(1)(a) could never arise. [Para 18] For the aforesaid reasons, the notices under section 154

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS ,LILUAH, HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming disallowance of Rs. 29,45,807/- of delay in deposit of PF/ESI made by CPC, which was beyond jurisdiction

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS,LIUAH, HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming disallowance of Rs. 29,45,807/- of delay in deposit of PF/ESI made by CPC, which was beyond jurisdiction