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

section 220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of taxes was not allowable as deduction in computation of the total income. 10. In our view whenever interest is charged under the Act, whether for delayed payment of tax or filing under estimate of tax or for non- submission of the estimate or return or for default in filing return

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

2 relates to disallowance of Rs.2,02,56,220/- by applying the provisions on section 14A. The issue has been

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

2. During the course of the assessment proceedings, as desired by the Assessing Officer the respondent duly submitted the break-up of total expenditure of Rs. 44,450 which was considered as disallowable under section 14A of the Act. The letter dated 24th January 2013 filed with the Assessing Officer is placed at pages 66 to 67 of the Paper

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

220/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO (in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP) grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 2,64,43,540/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1. disregarding

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

220/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO (in pursuance to the directions of Ld. DRP) grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 2,64,43,540/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1. disregarding

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

220 CTR 635 (Del) where it was held that s. 43B applied also to employees’ contribution to ESI and PF and that if a payment was made within the due date u/s. 139(1) of filing the ROI, the disallowance cannot be made. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal: "The only issue involved

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

disallowance of Rs 12.75,893 under section 14A. 8. The appellant crave leave to add, modify, delete any ground at on before hearing.” 3. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the invalid notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, which is not in accordance with the format issued by CBDT Circular No. F.NO.225/157/2017/ITA-11

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

disallowed a sum of 7,10,47,161 which the assessee- bank had reduced from loans and advances or debtors on the ground that the impugned bad debt had not been written off in an appropriate manner as required under the accounting principles. According to him, the impugned bad debt supposedly written off by the assessee-bank was mere provision

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

2)(ii) of the Rules. 12. We further direct that after re-working the gross disallowance of Rule 8D in terms of the discussion and direction given above, the A.O. shall reduce the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- already suo-moto disallowed by the assessee under section 14A and the net sum so computed alone shall be added back

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

2)(ii) of the Rules. 12. We further direct that after re-working the gross disallowance of Rule 8D in terms of the discussion and direction given above, the A.O. shall reduce the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- already suo-moto disallowed by the assessee under section 14A and the net sum so computed alone shall be added back

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

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

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 and M/ s Switz Foods Pvt. Ltd for the said period is filed by the assessee and placed on record. There

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)

2)(iii) in terms of investment, which yielded exempt income in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record including the material as available before us, we find that the assessee has not offered any amount towards dividend income earned by the assessee and as such subsection(3) of section

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

220 by applying the formula prescribed in Rule 8D(2)(ii) and ITA Nos.1983&1984/Kol/2014-Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. A.Y.2008-09& 2009-10 11 (iii) of the rules. The revenue authorities held that even in the absence of exempt income disallowance u/s.14A of the Act can be made and in coming to the above conclusion, the revenue authorities relied

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) 31,36,682 Difference on account of “grossing up” 37,33,151 3,07,17,394 Less: Losses brought forward from AY 2006-07 22,40,274 Taxable Income 2,84,77,120 13. Aggrieved by the proposal as contained in the draft assessment order, the Assessee filed objections to the proposed assessment as contained

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) 31,36,682 Difference on account of “grossing up” 37,33,151 3,07,17,394 Less: Losses brought forward from AY 2006-07 22,40,274 Taxable Income 2,84,77,120 13. Aggrieved by the proposal as contained in the draft assessment order, the Assessee filed objections to the proposed assessment as contained