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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

DAKSHIN BARASAT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,DAKSHIN BARASAT vs. I.T.O,, WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance, there remains no\nbasis for any demand under Section 156 of the Act. A demand notice\ncannot survive independent

BISWANATH HOSIERY MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 14A. This judgment reinforced that the disallowance should be proportionate to the actual exempt income.” 7.4. It was further stated that there are several other judicial pronouncements that emphasize that the disallowance u/s 14A is not applicable in the cases where there is no exempt income. The cases relied upon are as under: 1) “Eveready Industries India

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)

disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 6. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, Kolkata has erred in law and on facts by holding that the provisions of section 115JB (MAT) are not applicable for the year in the case of assessee on the adjusted book profits as it is not a Company u/s 211 of Companies

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

M/S KALYANI BARTER (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is warranted. However we disagree with the contention of the learned AR on the ground that the intention of the legislature is to collect tax on the income which is chargeable to tax. The revenue is not authorized to collect the tax on those activities which ITA No.681 & 824/Kol/2015-M/s. Kalyani Barter

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S A.K.G FINVEST LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

156 ITR 835) has supported this view. On perusal of P&L A/c., it is found that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.20.6 6lakhs. (iii) The purchase and sale of share is not an isolated incident in assessee's case. The assessee is engaged in purchase and sale of shares in regular course and that too in a bulk

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under Section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.2,20,15,787/- is not to be considered for book profit for calculation of book profit under Section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961?” DECISION OF THE HON’BLE COURT “We admit the question no.2 for adjudication in this appeal. By consent of the parties, the appeal

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

156 Taxman 257 (P&H) distinguished. Subsidy received by assessee from the State Government under a scheme of industrial promotion which was meant to provide financial assistance to ITA No.1533/Kol/2015 & 168/Kol/2016 Haldia Petrochemicals A.Y.2004-05 specified industries for expansion of capacities, modernization and improving their marketing capabilities is capital receipt though the amount of subsidy is equivalent to 90 per cent

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

156 Taxman 257 (P&H) distinguished. Subsidy received by assessee from the State Government under a scheme of industrial promotion which was meant to provide financial assistance to ITA No.1533/Kol/2015 & 168/Kol/2016 Haldia Petrochemicals A.Y.2004-05 specified industries for expansion of capacities, modernization and improving their marketing capabilities is capital receipt though the amount of subsidy is equivalent to 90 per cent

M/S. C D EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

156 ITR 323) has specifically held that the term "income" used in the Income-tax Act, 1961 includes "loss". Even the Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Aviation & Industries 4 I.T.A. No. 577/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. CD Equifinance Pvt. Ltd. Limited (208 ITR 103) held that the loss is 'negative income'. Accordingly the contention

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance can be made if the expenditure or allowance debited to the profit and loss account is not admissible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43B of the Act in computing the profits and gains of a business. For the purpose of section 43B of the Act, the expenditure shall be allowed in the year in which such