DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JB of the Act for the purpose of book profit. Ground no. 2 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 1274/Kol/2015 for the A.Y 2010-11 is allowed for statistical purpose. 41. Ground no. 5 raised by the revenue in ITA No. 1274/Kol/2015 for the A.Y 2010-11 is regarding deletion of adhoc disallowance made on account of misc

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but Income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ROSSELL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. iii) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that in case the appellant has sufficient owned funds no disallowance could be made by invoking Rule 8D:- CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BONAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA no

Bench: Shria. T. Varkey, J.M &Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1533/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacb 9156 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1532/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Feegrade & Company Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacf 6825 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd M/S. Feegrade& Company Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FEEGRADE & COMPANY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA no

Bench: Shria. T. Varkey, J.M &Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1533/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacb 9156 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1532/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cc-1(3)/Kolkata Vs. M/S. Feegrade & Company Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare 110-Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacf 6825 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata,Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment M/S. Bonai Industrial Company Ltd M/S. Feegrade& Company Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance to the expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- is warranted. Now looking to the facts of the case of the assessee, it appears to us that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the details of travelling and conveyance by filing copy of ledger for travelling and conveyance expenses. The details have been submitted by the assessee before

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

disallowed the interest expenses incurred by the assessee on account of late deposit of service tax and TDS after having reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 I.T.A. Nos.: 386 & 428/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shalimar Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) (Supra). The relevant extract

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

disallowed the interest expenses incurred by the assessee on account of late deposit of service tax and TDS after having reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 I.T.A. Nos.: 386 & 428/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shalimar Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) (Supra). The relevant extract

ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CONSORTIUM CAPITAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee that Explanation to Section 73 had no application in its case and accordingly directed

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RIKHAB CHAND JAIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1129/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Vs. Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 Nd Floor, 10, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Co No.47/Kol/2015 (A/O Ita No.1129/Kol/2015) ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 N D Floor, 10, Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

section 14A should be made, therefore, we confirm the order passed by CIT(A). Page | Page | Page | Sri Rikhab Chand Jain & CO No.47/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 4.4 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, ( in ground no.2), is dismissed. 5. Now, we deal with cross-objection filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has raised the following

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARAYANI SONS. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARAYANI SONS. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARAYANI SONS. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

215 would not be allowable under section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

disallowed the loss incurred on cancellation on the ground that such loss was speculative loss since the contract was settled otherwise than by delivery. On these facts the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: “The point upon which learned advocate for the revenue stressed was that, even there, there was a breach of contract for non-performance

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

disallowed the loss incurred on cancellation on the ground that such loss was speculative loss since the contract was settled otherwise than by delivery. On these facts the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: “The point upon which learned advocate for the revenue stressed was that, even there, there was a breach of contract for non-performance

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

disallowed the loss incurred on cancellation on the ground that such loss was speculative loss since the contract was settled otherwise than by delivery. On these facts the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: “The point upon which learned advocate for the revenue stressed was that, even there, there was a breach of contract for non-performance

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

215/- was charged during the year and capitalized under the head “expenditure during the construction period” further showing it under head “capital work-in-progress as is apparent from the schedule-6 annexed to balance sheet a copy of which is placed at pages 65-66 of the paper book. We further note that a loan of Rs.132

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

215/- was charged during the year and capitalized under the head “expenditure during the construction period” further showing it under head “capital work-in-progress as is apparent from the schedule-6 annexed to balance sheet a copy of which is placed at pages 65-66 of the paper book. We further note that a loan of Rs.132