ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DATEX OHMEDA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

24, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : June 20, 2018 O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M. :- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata dated 22.07.2014, whereby he deleted the addition of Rs.28,45,92,456/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of long

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2) should have been considered as having been fulfilled by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that in respect of the Assessment Year 2002-03 (Ground No. 1) the ld CIT(A) vide his Appellate 15 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 order dated 24-01-2007 (Paragraph

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2) should have been considered as having been fulfilled by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that in respect of the Assessment Year 2002-03 (Ground No. 1) the ld CIT(A) vide his Appellate 15 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 order dated 24-01-2007 (Paragraph

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

2) should have been considered as having been fulfilled by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that in respect of the Assessment Year 2002-03 (Ground No. 1) the ld CIT(A) vide his Appellate 15 ITA Nos. 674-982-983/Kol/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., AYs 2005-06,2007-08 &2008-09 order dated 24-01-2007 (Paragraph

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 40(a)(ia) 6. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VI, Kol has erred in confirming the disallowance of loss amounting to Rs.78,09,87,000 arising due to revaluation of unsettled interest swap contracts on market-to-market by treating the said loss as notional loss based on CBDT

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The\ncase was discussed with the Ld. A.R and after that the AO added an\namount of Rs. 7,81,40,620/- treated as an income of the assessee as the\nsame was received from the State Government by way of grant. The AO\nhas further disallowed the deduction claimed

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

2)(v) of the Act, he disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of bad debts written off to the extent of Rs.8,72,88,520/-. I.T.A. Nos. 1376, 1377, 1582 & 1531/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Page 7 of 20 12. The disallowance made

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed, a sum of Rs.6370625/-, represents the amount of undervaluation as on Page 3 of 18 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros. 01/04/2021. This figure had, in view of current transactions, culminated in the year end difference of Rs.11467009/-. As a result, the differential amount of Rs.5096384/- only (after exclusion of the opening balance) for being attributable

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

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

disallowance of assessee’s claim for bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 23. In the Profit & Loss Account, a sum of Rs.75,00,00,000/- was debited by the assessee on account of bad debts written off relating to Non-Rural Branches and the same was claimed as deduction under section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

viia) of the Act by applying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are as under: “40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

ACIT, CIRCLE-41, NADIA, NADIA vs. M/S SAKTINAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LTD., NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

24, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : October 27, 2017 ORDER This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (A) – 12, Kolkata dated 18.09.2016 and the grounds raised by the revenue therein read as under: “1. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961 because the assessee

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

2. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CLAIMED U/S 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT IN EXCESS OF PROVISIONS CREATED IN THE BOOKS – Rs. 162,56,86,471/- The brief facts of this issue is that the ld AO observed that the assessee had actually written off Rs. 306,03,64,654/- as bad and doubtful debts comprising

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

2. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CLAIMED U/S 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT IN EXCESS OF PROVISIONS CREATED IN THE BOOKS – Rs. 162,56,86,471/- The brief facts of this issue is that the ld AO observed that the assessee had actually written off Rs. 306,03,64,654/- as bad and doubtful debts comprising

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

viia) of the Act by\napplying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

viia) of the Act by\napplying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n11.\nGround Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act\non account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act are as under:\n“40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. THE JALPAIGURI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

viia) Rs. 2,03,84,910/- iii. Disallowance of provision of overdue interest Rs. 6,59,85,103/- iv. Interest paid to depositors disallowed Rs. 4,32,48,111/- v. Depreciation disallowed Rs. 5,24,657/- vi. Law charges disallowed Rs. 2,03,520/- Total assessed income at Rs. (-) 16,24,31,590/-” 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee

M/S TCG LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); (b) “recognised stock exchange” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to clause (5) of section 43; (c) “scheduled bank” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ii) of the Explanation to clause (viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36.” Page

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(1) of the part B of the Fourth Schedule. The bank has been regularly contributing to the fund for the base pension, based on actuarial valuation and have been claiming a deduction of the same on payment basis under Section 36(1)(iv) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act. • Apart from the approved superannuation fund, to compensate