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

v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. [2011] 199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where

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

v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. [2011] 199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where

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

v. Ankitech (P) Ltd. [2011] 199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where

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

47 taxmann.com 189)(Bangaore- Trib.) 4. National Coal Development Corporation Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No 1564/Kol/2011) 5. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT, Coimbatore (2010) (187 Taxman 346) (SC) 10.2 The AO has further held that income earned from investments made by the appellant with a ‘co-operative bank' would not be eligible for exemption

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

47 taxmann.com 189)(Bangaore- Trib.) 4. National Coal Development Corporation Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No 1564/Kol/2011) 5. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT, Coimbatore (2010) (187 Taxman 346) (SC) 10.2 The AO has further held that income earned from investments made by the appellant with a ‘co-operative bank' would not be eligible for exemption

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80P is adjudicated in the succeeding paras. Page 2 of 30 I.T.A. No.: 1021/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 5. The Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee and added the amount by holding as under: “4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed

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

47,32,736/-, which were disallowed under section 43B in the respective years in which they were created/debited. The ld AR submitted that the same was rightly claimed as deduction under section 43B in the year in which such provisions were written back and reversed/credited to the profit & loss Account. The ld. A.R. in defence of his argument relied

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

47) of the Act, held that insertion of sub-Clause (v), which provides that any transaction involving allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the TP Act, will also come within the ambit of transfer is relevant.” 6.3. Considering

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

47,18,502/- as interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO in computing the ALP was unjustified

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

47,18,502/- as interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO in computing the ALP was unjustified

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee is that family was HUF and each of HUF family\nmembers have a separate legal status so the father should be considered as a\nrelative. In this aspect we have gone through the cited decision filed by the\nassessee passed

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

47,220/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO (in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP) grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 2,64,43,540/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1. disregarding

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

47,220/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO (in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP) grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 2,64,43,540/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1. disregarding

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

47,18,502/- as interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO in computing the ALP was unjustified

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

47,18,502/- as interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO in computing the ALP was unjustified

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act could not be considered while computing MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. These authorities are merely cited as illustrations since there are other judicial pronouncements also on the subject, including an unreported judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court: CIT vs Jayshree Tea Limited [ITAT 47

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act out of the interest income of Rs. 2,83,02,934/- earned by the assessee on FDRs with the Scheduled Banks, interest on Personal Loans to members of Rs. 21,98,448/- and interest on HBL to staff of Rs. 1,76,490/- while Ground No. 3 is against