MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.4,20,90,323 instead of Rs.46,20,484 as offered by the Appellant itself under section 14A in computation of the ‘Book Profit’ under section 115JB.” 32. Sec.115JB(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

211 of the Companies Act in preparing their final accounts, then these companies cannot be treated differently for the purpose of sec. 115JB and accordingly, the provisions of sec. 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee.” Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue”. 15 DPSC Ltd. A.Y.2007-08 Though, section 115JB

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

211 of the Companies Act in preparing their final accounts, then these companies cannot be treated differently for the purpose of sec. 115JB and accordingly, the provisions of sec. 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee.” Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue”. Though, section 115JB has been amended

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

211(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 it was submitted that following of AS-11 was mandatory for the appellant The AR of the appellant further pointed out that in terms of Section 145 of the Act, the Central Government had to prescribe that any other accounting standard for income computation which was contrary to AS-11 prescribed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

211(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 it was submitted that following of AS-11 was mandatory for the appellant The AR of the appellant further pointed out that in terms of Section 145 of the Act, the Central Government had to prescribe that any other accounting standard for income computation which was contrary to AS-11 prescribed

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while determining the amount of “Book Profit” for charging Minimum Alternate Tax under section 115JB although such sum was neither debited to the Profit & Loss A/c. nor relatable to income not chargeable to tax.” Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Sandeep Choube, Ld. Departmental

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

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 by the AO while computing the profit under the provisions of MAT on the ground that it represents the unascertained liability. However the learned CIT(A) treated the same as ascertained liability and allowed relief to the assessee. Admittedly as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act the provisions representing the unascertained liability will be added

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:

section 115JB of the Act. 1.2 The assessee carried the additions in appeal, where he was partially successful. Now both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference: “i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition

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:

section 115JB of the Act. 1.2 The assessee carried the additions in appeal, where he was partially successful. Now both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference: “i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. ALLAHABAD BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :1998-99

disallowance of the appellant’s claim of Rs.62,77,00,635/- u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act. Similar issue came up for my consideration in the appellant’s appeal for the immediately preceding three assessment years in which I have decided the claim in favour of the appellant. Following my earlier year’s decisions, in the matter

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed u/s.14A of the Act. Gr.No.1 to 5 are thus partly allowed to the extent indicated. 8. Grounds No.6 & 7 raised by the Assessee reads as follows: “6. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - VI, Kol has erred in confirming the application of provision of section 115JB of the Income

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowed, but section 40A(3) of the Act is silent regarding the cash payments made with respect to each bill in a day which are below Rs 20,000/-. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Cochin Tribunal in the case of Raja & Co vs DCIT in ITA No. 534/Coch/2011 dated 22.3.2013. He also