M/S. SWAGAT TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA (FORMERLY D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing Book Profit of the assessee under section 115JB of the Act. 7. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. With regard to the first issue is concerned, it was the submission of the assessee that during the year, the assessee has earned dividend income

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

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

disallowance under section 14A to 1% of the exempt dividend income. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 is thus partly allowed. 11. Ground No. 5 raised in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 is an additional ground, which involves the issue relating to the levy of interest under section 234D

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

disallowance is directed to stand as such fo the purposes of section 14A of the Act. 6. The Ld. AR took us through grounds of appeals 4 to 9, which challenge the action of both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in applying the provision of section 115JB of the Act even when the assessee was not incorporated

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

disallowance is directed to stand as such fo the purposes of section 14A of the Act. 6. The Ld. AR took us through grounds of appeals 4 to 9, which challenge the action of both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in applying the provision of section 115JB of the Act even when the assessee was not incorporated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

SHEE & CO.,HOWRAH vs. ITO WARD 48(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 105/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shee & Co...............................…………………………........................................................Appellant Vill. Jhikira, P.O. Jhikira Bazar, Howrah – 711 401 [Pan: Aabas 5510 M] Ito Ward 48(4)...................……………………………………………………………………Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl Cit(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 11, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 14, Kolkata Dated 28.10.2016 & The Solitary Issue Raised Therein As Pressed & Argued By The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,29,53,207/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 40A(3) On Account Of Cash Payments Made Against Purchases Of Liquor Exceeding Rs. 20,000/-

disallowance of Rs. 1,29,53,207/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.63,07,123/- is therefore upheld, but on modified grounds, as discussed. M/s. Bengal NRI Complex Ltd. , AY 2010-11 3. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal read as under: For that on the facts and in the circumstances

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.63,07,123/- is therefore upheld, but on modified grounds, as discussed. M/s. Bengal NRI Complex Ltd. , AY 2010-11 3. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal read as under: For that on the facts and in the circumstances

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

disallowance of\ntransport expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of ₹4,75,92,207/- for non-\ndeduction of tax at source in terms of provisions of Section

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 to 209 and 214 to 217. As the impugned amount does not pertain to the year under consideration, therefore, the same cannot be disallowed under the provisions of Section

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

207 and 208 or within the dates indicated in section 211. Interest could not be levied under sections 234B and 234C.’ ITA No.1838/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 Universal Industrial Fund Ltd. v. DCIT, Cir-6, Kol. Page 12 It was held that these additions have been made to the total income of assessee as a result of retrospective amendment

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as discussed in para 7 at page 8 Disallowance of labour Rs. 66,89,134/- charges, supervision charges, tyres charges and repairs and maintenance charges u/s 40(a)(ia) in para 8 at page 8-9 above Disallowance of Rs. 2,80,400/- depreciation on dumpers as discussed in para 9 at page

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

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed