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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and allow these common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 31. The next common issue for our consideration is disallowance

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and allow these common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 31. The next common issue for our consideration is disallowance

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and allow these common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 31. The next common issue for our consideration is disallowance

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and allow these common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 31. The next common issue for our consideration is disallowance

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

section 2(22) e of the Act. Coming to the aspect of this appeal raised by the appellant in his ground number 1, I find that in this case, the AO has not brought on record any material to show that the impugned additions made by him in these grounds are based on any incriminating material found during search

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2(22)(e) of Rs. 1,25,02,162/ -. 6.1. The AO has stated the following in support of the disallowance: 1.1 "The assessee received total loan/advance of Rs. 1,25,02,162/- from M/ s Switz Foods Pvt. Ltd. on different dates during the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. A copy of such transactions held between the Assessee Company

M/S. CASTRON TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, HQRS.-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

22)(e) of the Act. He argued that routine questions were asked to the assessee, by way of a questionnaire by the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings and these routine questions were replied to by the assessee and no further enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that such raising of routine question and replies

DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.667/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Circle-1 Kolkata Vs. M/S The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. 10, Clive Row, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 9780 F (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca Revenue/Department By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) In Appeal No.259/Cc-Vii/Cit(A)C-I/10-11, Dated 31.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,30,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 2(22)(E). 2.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(I)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) In Respect Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi For An Amount Of Rs.1,32,86,580/-. 3.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,30,70,800/- Made On Account Of Gratuity Liability. 4.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,23,842/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Modify & Later Any Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Of This Case.”

22)(e) is not attracted in its case. Therefore, considering the factual position, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 3.6 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No.1), is dismissed. 4. Ground

DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 2(22)( e ) of the Act and the shareholding of the Assessee’s subsidiary M/S.Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., should not be considered and it is irrelevant. The question in the present case is not even as to whether the Assessee is a beneficial shareholder of the shares held by M/S.Hoogly Mills Projects Ltd. We therefore uphold the order

SMT. SANGITA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA

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

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

section 2(22)(e) on account of loan received by the assessee from M/s. Surya Business Pvt. Limited on which consideration in the form of interest was paid by the assessee to the benefit of the Company is not sustainable. We, therefore, delete the same and allow Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. As regards

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,04,43,067/- as dividend u/s.2(22)(e). 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of expenditure relating to earlier year. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in his observation that rule 8D read with section

DCIT, C.C.-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

section 2(22)(e), which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.01.2010. However, the disallowance under

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance. This first substantive grievance is rejected. 6. Next comes section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of ₹1,22

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

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

M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

2(22)( e) of the Act, being a deeming section, cannot be applied to current account. In such circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law. 9. Now coming to second issue which is regarding the payment of gratuity, from the foregoing discussion, we find that Ld. CIT held that