BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

161 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 738 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 1 (SC)[19-04-2018], wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under:-\n“11. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 wherein this Court has observed that

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

161 (SC)/[2018] 404\nPage 3\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited; 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17\nITR 738 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 1 (SC)[19-04-2018], wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under:-\n“11. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in the case

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

161 (SC)/[2018] 404\nITR 738 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 1 (SC)[19-04-2018], wherein the\nHon'ble court has held as under:-\n“11. In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court\nin the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 wherein this Court has\nobserved that

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D could not be made:- Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited [2010] 326ITR 1 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. -vs.- DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) Page 31 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. DCIT -vs.- Allahabad

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D could not be made:- Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited [2010] 326ITR 1 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. -vs.- DCIT [2017] 394 ITR 449 (SC) Page 31 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. DCIT -vs.- Allahabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

161 taxmann.com 158 as also directed that disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act could not be considered while computing MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. These authorities are merely cited as illustrations since there are other judicial pronouncements also on the subject, including an unreported judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court: CIT vs Jayshree

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to ESOP cost was deleted without appreciating the fact that ESOP expense is notional and that too of capital nature?" We have elaborately heard the leamed Advocates for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. 19 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 The legal issue involved in this appeal is squarely

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

161 taxmann.com 393 (Kolkata - Trib.)[14-12-2023]. Recently, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 352 (Kolkata - Trib.)[10-06-2025] have held as under: “■ It is submitted that the reason given by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the deduction claimed under section

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.

161 taxmann.com 158 as also directed that disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act could not be considered while computing MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. These authorities are merely cited as illustrations since there are other judicial pronouncements also on the subject, including an unreported judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court: CIT vs Jayshree

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.

161 taxmann.com 158 as also directed that disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act could not be considered while computing MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. These authorities are merely cited as illustrations since there are other judicial pronouncements also on the subject, including an unreported judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court: CIT vs Jayshree

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1 Payment for intra-group services: 1a - 84,688,150 91,626,428 IT services 1b - 161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1 Payment for intra-group services: 1a - 84,688,150 91,626,428 IT services 1b - 161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving

ITO(EXEMPTION),WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH AMIYA MEMORIAL TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 12(1)(b) of the Act were violated. The Revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [arising in SLP (Civil) No. 7620/2021] dated 11th July, 2022. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the relief to the assessee and the relevant extract from the order

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

1,00,00,000/- made by AO u/s 68 along with disallowance of interest expenses thereon of Rs.1,94,958/-, by merely relying on the form rather than the substance of impugned unsecured loan transactions? 3) Whether on facts of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s appeal on addition made in respect

PEERLESS HOTELS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 545/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Peerless Hotels Limited,..........................Appellant 12, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aabcp9484D] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2023

Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ld. Assessing Officer further made reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited –vs.- CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154. He made a disallowance on the basis of Rule 8D(2) and worked out such disallowance at 1% by taking note of annual

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

161 of 2013-Cal HC). 14. FOR THAT the DRP grossly erred in confirming the adjustment made by the AO of INR 50,51,380 computed as per Rule 8D while arriving at book profit under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that provisions of subsection (2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

161 of 2013-Cal HC). 14. FOR THAT the DRP grossly erred in confirming the adjustment made by the AO of INR 50,51,380 computed as per Rule 8D while arriving at book profit under section 115JB of the Act without appreciating that provisions of subsection (2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

1) and on the other hand, a contingent one for the purpose of TDS. Ld. CIT(A) thus upheld the disallowance of the additional royalty payable to KOPT made by the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. T M International Logistics Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 5. Ld. Counsel