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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and disallowance under section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and disallowance under section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22 of 38 specified nature rendered by the former to the latter. He contended that commission or brokerage for the purpose of section 40(a)(ia) thus should emerge from its principal-agent relationship and disallowance

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

section 14A r.w.r 8D(2) of the Act. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee during the year had received dividend income of Rs.4436 only, whereas, the assessee had already disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- in the computation of income on account of disallowance of expenditure

DCIT, CIR-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 2(22)( e ) of the Act and the shareholding of the Assessee’s subsidiary M/S.Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., should not be considered and it is irrelevant. The question in the present case is not even as to whether the Assessee is a beneficial shareholder of the shares held by M/S.Hoogly Mills Projects Ltd. We therefore uphold the order

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

disallowance of deduction. 19. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following submissions on this issue: “3. Matter related to deduction claimed under section 80-1A of the Act: (A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under section 80IA(4) (iv) of the income tax Act.1961

M/S. CASTRON TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, HQRS.-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

22)(e) of the Act. He argued that routine questions were asked to the assessee, by way of a questionnaire by the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings and these routine questions were replied to by the assessee and no further enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that such raising of routine question and replies

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n1. The assessee company also submitted assessment orders of\nvarious previous AY's wherein assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act,\n1961 was duly completed. The assessee submitted that similar\nfinancial transactions were undertaken by the assessee company\nwith its subsidiary company and all the relevant documents were\nduly

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

disallowed on pro-rata basis interms of section 14A of the Act. & CO No.30/Kol/2014 M/s. Philips Carbon Black Ltd the AR submitted that the assessee did not incur any expenditure in earning the aforesaid income, which was exempt from tax, except for the sum of Rs.2,22

SMT. SANGITA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA

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

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

section 2(22)(e) on account of loan received by the assessee from M/s. Surya Business Pvt. Limited on which consideration in the form of interest was paid by the assessee to the benefit of the Company is not sustainable. We, therefore, delete the same and allow Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. As regards

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

22)(e) of Rs. 1,25,02,162/ -. 6.1. The AO has stated the following in support of the disallowance: 1.1 "The assessee received total loan/advance of Rs. 1,25,02,162/- from M/ s Switz Foods Pvt. Ltd. on different dates during the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. A copy of such transactions held between the Assessee Company

DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.667/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Circle-1 Kolkata Vs. M/S The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. 10, Clive Row, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 9780 F (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca Revenue/Department By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) In Appeal No.259/Cc-Vii/Cit(A)C-I/10-11, Dated 31.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,30,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 2(22)(E). 2.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(I)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) In Respect Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi For An Amount Of Rs.1,32,86,580/-. 3.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,30,70,800/- Made On Account Of Gratuity Liability. 4.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,23,842/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Modify & Later Any Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Of This Case.”

22)(e) is not attracted in its case. Therefore, considering the factual position, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 3.6 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No.1), is dismissed. 4. Ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

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

22 principle of consistency, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 3. 17. Ground No. 4 of the revenue’s appeal and ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 involve a common issue relating to the disallowance under section

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

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

22 of 23 therefore, required the assessee to explain as to why the interest expenditure attributable to the investment made in shares of other companies should not be disallowed under section

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEENLOK ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking into consideration only those shares, which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration. The alternative contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is accordingly accepted. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is thus partly allowed. 19. In Ground No. 2, the Revenue has challenged the action

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

22. In the present case, the assessee has taken a stand that a particular amount has to be disallowed as expenditure incurred in earning exempt dividend income. The AO did not agree with the claim of the Assessee and he estimated the disallowance on a different basis. The question is whether it is mandatory for the AO to apply Rule

DCIT, C.C.-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

section 2(22)(e), which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.01.2010. However, the disallowance under

ACIT, CIRCLE - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance. This first substantive grievance is rejected. 6. Next comes section 2(22)(e) deemed dividend addition of ₹1,22