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

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

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

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

disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method

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)

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

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

disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31-03-2009. Before we proceed further, it would be relevant to analyse the provisions of Before we proceed further, it would be relevant to analyse the provisions of Before we proceed further, it would be relevant to analyse the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act read with proviso (d) and explanation 1 to Section 43(5) Section

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

Section 36(1 )(viia) to RS.268,76,31 ,809, being the amount of provision made in the accounts and disallowing Rs.276,01,94,417 out of ITA No.1199/Kol/2012 &1282/Kol/2012- Allahabad Bank A.Y.2008-09 Rs.544,78,26,226 claimed by the Appellant in the return of Income tax for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

31,576/- earned on deposit from IDBI Bank, Axis Bank and Bandhan Bank is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act 1961. Under these circumstances you are requested to show cause why deduction u/s 80P should not be disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

disallowance of Rs.10,72,47,695/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to Rs.4,31,280/- being the dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. 2

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

31 amendment itself. The industries which were given exemption u/s. 80IA form Assessment Year 1996-97 as per the provision of Section 80IA which existed till Assessment Year 1999-00 were capital intensive industries and were not able to make any profits in the first few years. Therefore the provisions were amended by legislature and a choice of 10 years

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

31 amendment itself. The industries which were given exemption u/s. 80IA form Assessment Year 1996-97 as per the provision of Section 80IA which existed till Assessment Year 1999-00 were capital intensive industries and were not able to make any profits in the first few years. Therefore the provisions were amended by legislature and a choice of 10 years

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

31 amendment itself. The industries which were given exemption u/s. 80IA form Assessment Year 1996-97 as per the provision of Section 80IA which existed till Assessment Year 1999-00 were capital intensive industries and were not able to make any profits in the first few years. Therefore the provisions were amended by legislature and a choice of 10 years

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

31 amendment itself. The industries which were given exemption u/s. 80IA form Assessment Year 1996-97 as per the provision of Section 80IA which existed till Assessment Year 1999-00 were capital intensive industries and were not able to make any profits in the first few years. Therefore the provisions were amended by legislature and a choice of 10 years

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

31 amendment itself. The industries which were given exemption u/s. 80IA form Assessment Year 1996-97 as per the provision of Section 80IA which existed till Assessment Year 1999-00 were capital intensive industries and were not able to make any profits in the first few years. Therefore the provisions were amended by legislature and a choice of 10 years