DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under:-\n\"\"Mark to Market

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under:-\n''\"Mark to Market

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under:-\n''\"Mark to Market

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under:-\n\"Mark to Market

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under:-\n''\"Mark to Market

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 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23

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 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23

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 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23

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 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65,23

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance by observing as under:- "23. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and submissions of the appellant and both the decisions referred to above of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the copies of the Appellate Orders for the Assessment Years 2000-01, 200203 and 2004-05 of the CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23-October-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 dated

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23-October-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 dated

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee