APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

14 and the same are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of operating of business centres and letting out. It e-filed its return for AY 2013-14 on 28/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.4,38,82,870/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice under section 143(2

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

14 and the same are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of operating of business centres and letting out. It e-filed its return for AY 2013-14 on 28/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.4,38,82,870/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice under section 143(2

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

14 and the same are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of operating of business centres and letting out. It e-filed its return for AY 2013-14 on 28/09/2013 declaring income of Rs.4,38,82,870/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice under section 143(2

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

iii) Disallowance of ½% of average value of investment Rs.107,29,27,282/- * 0.5% = Rs.53,64,636/- & CO No.30/Kol/2014 M/s. Philips Carbon Black Ltd Total disallowance u/s. 14A Rs.53,64,636/-“ 7. Aggrieved, assessee challenged the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules at Rs.3243231/- before

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(i) are much narrower in scope than the scope of Section 14 A simplictor. With these observations, we confirm the conclusions of the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” 20. The ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that the disallowance

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules 1962. Accordingly the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page 4 7,92,538/- which was reduced by the learned CIT(A) by directing the AO to work out the disallowance after considering only those investments which have yielded

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)

iii). Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is therefore dismissed and the grounds of assessee's CO are allowed”. 8. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to A.Y. 2012- 13, we respectfully follow the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2012-13 and uphold

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

iii) Bad debt recovery Rs. 7,77,123/- iv) Bounce cheque charges Rs. 4,11,440/- v) Other receipts Rs. 7,65,866/- vi) Cellsite sharing revenue Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs.1,20,84,621 The AO was of the view that the above receipts are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and accordingly sought