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

SHELTER PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (A)-XII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

47)(v) and Section 53­A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect. iii) Whether there was any default on the part of the developers, and if so, its effect on the transactions and on exigibility to tax ? iv) Whether amount yet to be received can be taxed on a hypothetical

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

disallowance of Rs 12.75,893 under section 14A. 8. The appellant crave leave to add, modify, delete any ground at on before hearing.” 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the invalid notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, which is not in accordance with the format issued by CBDT Circular No. F.NO.225/157/2017/ITA-11

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

47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 48. The question before us to examine is as to whether the AO rightly invoked Rule 8D without verifying the correctness of claim of assesse in the facts and circumstances of the case. 49. We find from the order of AO that the assesse was holding

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

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

v. CIT 2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Del) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom) have taken a view that Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules will apply only for A.Ys. 2008-09 and subsequent assessment years. It has also been laid down that the assessee

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

47 and 104) the CBDT has taken a contradictory approach while dealing with the charge of FBT with regard to the aforesaid expenses. The CBDT has clarified that these allowances fall within the meaning of 'salary' as defined in clause (1) of section 17 of the Income-tax Act (though not taxable because of specific exemption) and, any expenditure incurred

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-

47,695/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D to Rs.4,31,280/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2. Assessing Officer has followed theism order of A.Y 2003-04 and has allowed depreciation at a rate of 25% instead of 60%. The rate of depreciation was decided in AY 2003-04 on the basis of submission of insufficient details in respect of the nature of the asst under dispute. The appeal against the order

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

2. Assessing Officer has followed theism order of A.Y 2003-04 and has allowed depreciation at a rate of 25% instead of 60%. The rate of depreciation was decided in AY 2003-04 on the basis of submission of insufficient details in respect of the nature of the asst under dispute. The appeal against the order

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

2. Assessing Officer has followed theism order of A.Y 2003-04 and has allowed depreciation at a rate of 25% instead of 60%. The rate of depreciation was decided in AY 2003-04 on the basis of submission of insufficient details in respect of the nature of the asst under dispute. The appeal against the order