DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.26,09,386/- u/s 14A of the Income- tax Act, 1961, by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules against meager Dividend income of Rs.1,32,638/- only. 4. The appellant craves leave

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)

3. The assessee in the present case is a Banking Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. In the computation of total income filed along with the said return, disallowance of Rs.1,17,97,270/- was suo motu made by the assessee under section 40(a)(ia). During

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

3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various kinds of "income" – inserted clause (x). This is a significant amendment, because Parliament intended that amounts not earned by the assessee, but received by it, - whether in the form of deductions, or otherwise, as receipts, were to be treated as income. The inclusion of a class of receipt, i.e., amounts received

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1),SILIGURI. , SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.215. 5. That on the facts of the case, the ld. AO(TDS) has erred in law by initiating proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T.Act,1961 without satisfying himself as to whether the deductee/payee assessee has failed to pay taxes directly, which has been held

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS),WD-5(3),DARJEELING, DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.215. 5. That on the facts of the case, the ld. AO(TDS) has erred in law by initiating proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T.Act,1961 without satisfying himself as to whether the deductee/payee assessee has failed to pay taxes directly, which has been held

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS)WD-5(3), DARJEELING, , DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.06.215. 5. That on the facts of the case, the ld. AO(TDS) has erred in law by initiating proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(lA) of the I.T.Act,1961 without satisfying himself as to whether the deductee/payee assessee has failed to pay taxes directly, which has been held

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

3. The assessee in the present case is a Banking Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. In the computation of total income filed along with the said return, disallowance of Rs.1,17,97,270/- was suo motu made by the assessee under section 40(a)(ia). During

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

201 1-12 and 2012-13. Payment for Information Technology ('IT') Service Cost 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disregarding the direction of the Ld. DRP to delete the ALP adjustment of INR 3, 58, 02,269/- in respect of payment of IT service cost, though

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(ia) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,35,48,59,800/- in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 28.12.2016. 3. The records of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act subsequently came

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

3), no disallowance under section 14A on account of interest was made by the Assessing Officer thereby accepting that the investment in shares was made by the assessee out of its own funds and there was no utilization of interest bearing borrowed funds for making such investment. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assesese from the relevant

RADHAKRISHNA AGRO PRODUCTS,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BURDWAN. , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

3) for making payments in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved by the addition and disallowance, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ground nos. 1(a) to (c) relates to ex parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) without complying with the provisions of section

GLOBAL VENTURE CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 201(1) of the Act then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with the aforesaid direction for verification. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 201(IA) amounting to Rs.1,80,495.00. Another sum was disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee except for allowing the grounds of appeal in respect of disallowance made u/s. 14A read

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 201(IA) amounting to Rs.1,80,495.00. Another sum was disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee except for allowing the grounds of appeal in respect of disallowance made u/s. 14A read

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd. 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6463N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding

M/S PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL AND RESERCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1107/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10 M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 7225 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201(1A)………" 5.1. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted in the instant case. We also find that the assessee had brought evidence on record to prove that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

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

disallowed by invoking the provisions of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of his order is reproduced herein below:- “ I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the submission made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I find that my predecessor has given a detailed finding