M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 144C(13) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,26,00,000/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ‘AEs’). 3. On the facts

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,88,57,264 on the contention

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773 is liable to be summarily rejected. 4. Impugned levying interest under section 234C amounting to Rs. 32,317. The Learned Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, has passed the order under section 154 in ignoring the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs 6,39,970 resulting into a tax on unjustified denial

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking Rule 8D(2) and without establishing any approximate cause between such expenditure incurred and earning of tax-free income. 4. For that without prejudice to anything said herein above, the Assessing Officer erred

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking Rule 8D(2) and without establishing any approximate cause between such expenditure incurred and earning of tax-free income. 4. For that without prejudice to anything said herein above, the Assessing Officer erred

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

3)", "271(1)(c)", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance of transport expenses solely based on non-appearance of vehicle details in the VAHAN portal is sustainable, and whether the disallowance under Section

DIGVIJAY FINLEASE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Sections 243B/C of the Act. 1.2 It is seen that the AO found that on investment of Rs. 1,79,21,14,170/- the assessee had suo moto disallowed expenses of Rs. 6,08,573/-. The Ld. AO considered this to be inadequate and proceeded ahead to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules

M/S. THE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during the hearing of the Appeal. 4. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.” Page

M/S. THE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during the hearing of the Appeal. 4. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.” Page

HARBAUER(INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ,CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.512/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Harbauer (India) Pvt. Ltd.....................................................................…..…Appellant 16 Acropolis Mall, 1858 7Th Floor, Rajdanga Main Road, Kasba, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aabch3424M] Vs. Adit, Cpc...........................…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Additions/ Disallowances Made By The Learned Adit-Cpc In The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Providing Opportunity Of Personal Hearing/ Video Conferencing Before Upholding The Additions/ 1(B) Disallowances Made By The Learned Adit-Cpc In The Order Under Section

disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act merely on the basis of procedural error even after accepting the eligibility of the Assessee to claim deduction in its revised return of income. 3(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.278

KOOMBER PROPERTIES & LEASING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPA. BANGALORE. , BANGALORE.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

234B in the sum of Rs.279104 and Section 234C in the sum of Rs.93408. (4) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter modify the grounds mentioned herein above. - 4 Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are related to the addition of Rs.60,46,000/- to the appellant’s income from business

KHANDRA COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BARDHAMAN vs. THE AO, CPC BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

234B for default in payment of Advance Payment because the society is not liable to pay tax as it can avail 100% of its profit as a deduction. 6) That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case is that section 234C for difference of advance tax as it not liable to pay tax. 7) That

NCGB RETROFIT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, subject to the verification as mentioned

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2023-24 Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 3A, St. George Terrace, Vs Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata-700022, West Bengal Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn8752B Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anup Singh, Ar Respondent By : Shri Supriya Pal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Addl/ Jt. Cit (A)” ) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2023-24 Dated 22.05.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee NCGB Retrofit Private Limited (PAN AAACN87518) was having income under the head Profits and Gains

NEELAM DUGAR ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1530/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar,......................................Appellant 75, Bbd Road, Eliza 3, 4Th Floor, Hindmotor, Hooghly-712233 [Pan: Ahhpd6956A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-35(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri A.N. Keshri, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.04.2018 Passed For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal. In Ground No. 1, She Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.69,57,000/-, Which Was Added By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 68 Of The Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, She Has Pleaded That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,66,794/- & In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged Charging Of Interest Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, The Assessee Has Raised Supporting Argument Qua Earlier Three Grounds Of Appeal.

234B of the Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, the assessee has raised supporting argument qua earlier three grounds of appeal. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the assessment record would reveal that assesese has filed her original return of income on 19.03.2015 declaring total income

SMT. PRIYANKA GANGULY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(IT)-CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

234B and section 234D of the Act. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing

PRAHLAD DUTT LATA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

3 I.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata 6. That the disallowance of Rs.503053 being the interest paid on borrowed capital used in partnership firm, allegedly due to non-furnishing of explanation of claim of expenses in Order u/s 144 dated 27.12.2016 and also in order u/s 154/144 dated 19.11.2018 of the Income

SUKDEV SEN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR. 61, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

234B and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground by holding that the ground is general and consequential in nature. 7. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging excess interest of Rs. 18,628/- u/s. 234C and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the said ground

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance conceived by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the computation of book profits for the purpose of computation under income under section 115JB. Other Miscellaneous Grounds: 18. For that the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 19. For that the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act. Each