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 u/s 2(24)(x

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 u/s 2(24)(x

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 u/s 2(24)(x

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2)(x) on acquisition of leasehold land & building; (ii) Disallowance of expenditure on scientific research u/s 35(1)(i) of the Act; (iii)Disallowance of claim u/s 43B in relation to reversal or write back of provision for liabilities; (iv) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA; (v) Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.4,60,032/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF by wrongly invoking provision of section 43B which is relating to employer's contribution to PF while employee contribution to PF is governed by section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. section 2 applies. These amendments will take effec These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly t from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021 apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. 22 and subsequent assessment years. [Clauses

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

sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) for the alleged delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant Act but deposited before the due date of furnishing the return of income. I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd 2 That the Learned Commissioner of Income

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid

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]

section 2(24)(x) of the Act in view of the same not being covered by Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. On the basis of the above facts it was submitted that the disallowance

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]

section 2(24)(x) of the Act in view of the same not being covered by Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. On the basis of the above facts it was submitted that the disallowance

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]

section 2(24)(x) of the Act in view of the same not being covered by Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. On the basis of the above facts it was submitted that the disallowance

PHOENIX UDYOG PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd.……….....................................……………....Appellant 9, Vishal Market, West Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-110009. [Pan: Aaccp4046N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI i.e. after the due date as provided under the respective welfare enactments. I.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd 3. The issue is squarely covered

MICROVIEWS INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.642/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. ………...................................……Appellant 148A, Cit Road, Scheme-Vim, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Aafcm0646L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May11, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI i.e. after the due date as provided under the respective welfare enactments. I.T.A No.642/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2019-20 Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd 3. It is to be noted that

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

X 841,80,64,657 75301,53,24,500 = 50,29,36,092 From the above calculation, it is evident that out of total interest cost amounting to Rs. 4498,87,95,000, a proportionate part of interest to the extent of Rs. 50,29,36,092 was disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 12. The AO computed disallowance

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2(24)(x) of Rs. 13,04,162/- and disallowance by way of penalty or fine for violation of any law of Rs. 3,39,626/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the sustaining the order of ld. AO. 4. Feeling aggrieved

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.”

2(24)(x) and section 43B is attracted in case of employer contribution only. Therefore, deduction of Rs.1,32,86,580/- as claimed by the assessee in the computation u/s 43B on payment basis was disallowed

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief. iv. We may add, alter, amend

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief. iv. We may add, alter, amend

TAPATI SINHA,24-PARGANAS (S) vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of employees’ contribution to 2 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Tapati Sinha P.F. and ESI under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x