DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

M/S M. K. AMBER WEAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

4 of 6 impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3). The same is, therefore, upheld on this issue dismissing Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. The issue involved in Ground No. 3 relates to the disallowance of Rs.72,172

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1973. It is necessary to appreciate the purpose and object intended to be achieved by this sub-section in order to arrive at the true meaning of the provision

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance made by the AO is hereby deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant company.” Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground of appeal: 4 5 I.T. A. No. 2627/Kol/2013 Assessment Years: 2009-10 “2. Whether

QUADRO INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

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

172] (SC), Bongaigaon Refinery 8s Petrochemicals Ltd., [251 ITR 329] (SC) and CIT Vs.-Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3,85,596 Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3,85,596 Autokast Ltd., [248 ITR 110] (SC) the order of the AO in disallowing Rs.3

I.T.O WD - 8(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

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

sections, designs, working drawings etc. It was to submit the detailed design and the execution drawings such as site plans, general arrangement drawings, L-sections, plans, architectural, structural drawings and all working drawings, for approval. (ii) Materials: All the material required for the work was to be provided by the assessee. (iii) Labour: The assessee was to pay wages

M/S SMPL INFRA LTD ( EASTWHILE M/S SUBHAS PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

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

sections, designs, working drawings etc. It was to submit the detailed design and the execution drawings such as site plans, general arrangement drawings, L-sections, plans, architectural, structural drawings and all working drawings, for approval. (ii) Materials: All the material required for the work was to be provided by the assessee. (iii) Labour: The assessee was to pay wages

M/S. MANAKSIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction of TOS u/s.194C cannot be accepted. Further it is seen that EMU Shipping Lines and Meridian Cargo Line are authorized agents of NRSCs and not forwarders. In the case of the Appellant it has demonstrated with the help

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction of TOS u/s.194C cannot be accepted. Further it is seen that EMU Shipping Lines and Meridian Cargo Line are authorized agents of NRSCs and not forwarders. In the case of the Appellant it has demonstrated with the help

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

4 We also understand that section 172 of the Act is applicable for the purpose of the levy and recovery of tax in case of any ship, belonging to or chartered by a non-resident, which carries passengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at a port in India. The non-resident shipping companies are liable to pay taxes u/s 172

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 172. The disallowances of Rs.83,026/- and Rs.86,934/- are confirmed. Ground no. 3 is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before us. 4

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

172 (SC) hence, we hold that the action of the AO in directly embarking on Rule 8D(2) of the IT rules is not appreciated and hence no disallowance under section 14A of the Act could be made in the facts of the case. We also find that the investments made in the group companies by the assessee are only

DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED PIGMENTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

4 5.2. The disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was challenged by the assessee in appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submission made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance for the following reasons given in paragraph

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 80HHC of the Act in this regard. Accordingly, the Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. Disallowance of 50% of aggregate expenditure incurred on running and maintenance of aircraft – Rs. 52,05,217/- ( 50% of 1,04,10,435/-) The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee maintains two aircrafts bearing registration

AMBIA SOHRAB,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

section 263 of the Act. The AO is further directed to decided the matter as per law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed the appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The Ld. AR, in the course of appeal before

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

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

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

172/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules in the sum of Rs. 57,386/-. Accordingly, total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the 3 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 Rules worked out to Rs. 2,73,558/-. The ld CIT(A) sustained