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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

237/-; and-consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are clearly applicable. The disallowance of Rs.l,58,237/- is confirmed

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed the valuation of closing stock on the ground that closing stock shall be valued either at the cost or market price whichever is less as on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March 2005. As per the AO the future price cannot form the basis of valuation of closing stock. The view of the AO was also subsequently confirmed

DCIT,CIRCLE-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER . S. JAMUMBDER &CO,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBHOTOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(i) where law relating to tax deduction at source is retrospectively amended or circular in that behalf is subsequently withdrawn. 10. Ld. Counsel also argued the factual aspect that the revenue sought to invoke section 9(1)(i) of the Act but having failed, shifted ground and sought to invoke Section

DCIT/CIR-12/KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

237 ITR 579 (SC). They hold that the crucial expression ‘derived from’ used in the impugned deduction provision means the relevant income to be having a direct nexus with the business activity or profits and gains derived there from. Learned senior counsel fairly concedes that the honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in assessee’s own case reported as 231 Taxman

D.C.I.T CIR - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

237 ITR 579 (SC). They hold that the crucial expression ‘derived from’ used in the impugned deduction provision means the relevant income to be having a direct nexus with the business activity or profits and gains derived there from. Learned senior counsel fairly concedes that the honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in assessee’s own case reported as 231 Taxman

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

237 ITR 579 (SC). They hold that the crucial expression ‘derived from’ used in the impugned deduction provision means the relevant income to be having a direct nexus with the business activity or profits and gains derived there from. Learned senior counsel fairly concedes that the honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in assessee’s own case reported as 231 Taxman

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

237 ITR 579 (SC). They hold that the crucial expression ‘derived from’ used in the impugned deduction provision means the relevant income to be having a direct nexus with the business activity or profits and gains derived there from. Learned senior counsel fairly concedes that the honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in assessee’s own case reported as 231 Taxman