BINOD KUMAR BURNWAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [Pan : Aizpb 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent

234B charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 8. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Ground No. 1, is general in nature. 4. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are against the disallowance of Rs.7,87,193/-, out of commission paid to retailer

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance has been rightly made by the AO which is confirmed. Accordingly, this Ground No. 3 of appeal, therefore, fails”. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The common issue raised in Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the assessee’s appeal relates to the validity

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowing an amount of Rs. 3,924 paid as interest on service tax. 6. Interest under section 2348 of the Act 6.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying Rs.23,24,948 as interest under section 234B

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

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

disallowance under section 14A to 1% of the exempt dividend income. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 is thus partly allowed. 11. Ground No. 5 raised in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 is an additional ground, which involves the issue relating to the levy of interest under section 234D

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A mandate that the onus in on the AO to justify the basis for not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Appellant in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under Act. 3.e) The impugned order has further erred in not abiding

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

3) of the Act for the Asst Year 2010-11 wherein the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made by the assessee has been accepted by the Learned AO. He further argued that the assessee had made earned taxable interest income of Rs. 248.78 crores and paid interest on its borrowings amounting to Rs. 211.01 crores and earned

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

234B d. Rs. 3,04,32,052/-on account of Disputed Interest u/s 234C” 3. Although the assessee has taken 20 grounds of appeal, however, the main grievance of the assessee is that the addition made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act should have been deleted in the appeal decided u/s 143(3

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 3. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 2 relating to the dispute as regards the stage at which MAT credit is to be allowed, the ld. Representatives of both

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3 5(a) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the decision of the AO in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. 5(b) That the CIT(Appeals)erred in not appreciating that the interest under section 234B is not chargeable if the assessee pays taxes under MAT provisions

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3 5(a) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the decision of the AO in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. 5(b) That the CIT(Appeals)erred in not appreciating that the interest under section 234B is not chargeable if the assessee pays taxes under MAT provisions

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3 5(a) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the decision of the AO in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. 5(b) That the CIT(Appeals)erred in not appreciating that the interest under section 234B is not chargeable if the assessee pays taxes under MAT provisions

DPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

234B of the Act. Basing on the above facts and contentions, the following issues arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the authorities below are justified in disallowing the claim for deduction of expenditure by invoking the provisions under section 14A r/w 8D in respect of the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10? 2. Is the CIT (Appeal) justified

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

234B of the Act. Basing on the above facts and contentions, the following issues arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the authorities below are justified in disallowing the claim for deduction of expenditure by invoking the provisions under section 14A r/w 8D in respect of the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10? 2. Is the CIT (Appeal) justified

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. 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

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

3 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 29. As regards the issue involved in Grounds No. 4 & 5 relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A read with Rule 8D, it is observed that the disallowance under section 14A was computed by the Assessing Officer as well

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

disallowance of Firm Services expenditure payment amounting to ₹150,046,130/ ₹150,046,130/-.” 19. The ld. D/R, could not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is uld not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is uld not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is covered by this above referred order