MAHABIR PRASAD DHAKALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 40A(3) and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the said provision was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). In that view of the matter, I uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITO, WD-29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPECIAL LEATHER INDUSTRIES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal (ITA No

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 40A(3) of the Act and the addition made by the AO is not at all maintainable. The CIT-A considering the evidences, ledger copies and submissions of the assessee has rightly directed the AO to give the deduction. He relied on the order of the CIT-A and prayed to dismiss the ground no. 1 raised

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

23A Rs.20,246/- and of Rs.2,20,480/- under section 234B and Rs.102244 under section 234C. 5. That the assessee craves leave to alter/comment any grounds of appeal and to take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The first common issue relates to disallowance

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

23A Rs.20,246/- and of Rs.2,20,480/- under section 234B and Rs.102244 under section 234C. 5. That the assessee craves leave to alter/comment any grounds of appeal and to take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The first common issue relates to disallowance

PACIFIC PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1643/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Pacific Plantations Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 5418 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section. b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the aforesaid addition of Rs. 9,97,405/- made by the assessing officer while computing the amount of book profit chargeable to tax u/s 115JB, as against Rs. 3,04,259/- voluntarily disallowed by the appellant while computing its returned book profit, when, such voluntarily disallowance made

XL ENTERPRISES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 4,55,83131/- as made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income of Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and 2 I.T.A. No. 2105/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

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

ANAND EDUCATION TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-1(1), EXEMPT. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11(6), the assessee has not claimed acquisition of property towards application of income while computing the total taxable 6 A.Y. 2016-2017 Anand Education Trust income. If that be so, then depreciation cannot be disallowed to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court

SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1111/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Anil Kumar Jain -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xx, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Acfpj0712R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.10,400/- which was rents payable by the assessee for the period prior to the previous year relevant to A.Y.2009-10. It was the plea of the assessee that the assessee was a tenant of the premises at 23A, Kalakar Street, Kolkata. The building was in a dilapidated condition and needed repairs. To pressurise the landlord to carry

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HIMADRI DYES & INTERMEDIATES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

23A, N.S. Road. 8 th Floor, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN : AAACH 7634 Q] Appearances by: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, for the Department Shri Ravi Tulsian, FCA, for the assessee Nate of concluding the hearing : December 11, 2015 Date of pronouncing the order : December 16, 2015 O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap:- This appeal is preferred

SRI DEO KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order wherein AO made additions in respect to these three items and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect to these three items by observing that “penalty proceedings

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of deduction under section 80IC by allocating indirect expenses to the eligible Unit. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of printing ink. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 28.11.2006 I.T.A

M/S HIMADRI INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T CENTRAL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 142(1) questionnaire dated 18.01.2010. It is not in dispute that the Ld. AO disallowed a sum of Rs.22,584/- being the disallowance offered by the assessee based on workings given above. Under these circumstances, the claim of the assessee requires to be accepted and that of revenue deserves to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid findings

MODERN HI-RISE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN.CIR.-2(1) , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13

section 14A of the Act, the Ld. AO firstly was required to go through computation made by the assessee in respect of suo motu disallowance made/disallowed by the assessee and before applying Rule 8D he should have recorded his dis-satisfaction to the method adopted by the assessee for making the suo motu disallowance. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before

HIMADRI CREDIT & FINANCE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.C.-2(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम / Himadri Credit & Finance D.C.I.T, Cc-2(1), Kolkata Ltd O/O The Dy. Commissioner V/S. 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Of Income Tax, C.C 2(1), 8Th Fl., Suite No. 15, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700 001. 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- [Pan No. Aaach8166K 107. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T Rules to calculate the disallowance. It has been further pleaded by him that the Ld. AO while making the impugned disallowance also added the disallowance of interest expenditure incurred under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T Rules. That, in fact, the assessee did not incur any such

M/S. STAR TRACK AGENCY (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1766/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Star Track Agency Pvt. Ltd..............................…………………………………..Appellant 23A, N.S. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaecs 4100 N] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….................Respondent Ward 3(2) Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.K. Das, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) -2, Kolkata Dated 05.06.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Bad In Law. Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice The Assessment Was Made U/S 144/147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. For That The Disallowance Of Rs. 10,34,506/- As Unverified Purchase (20% Of Purchase Amounting To Rs. 51,72,532/-) Is Arbitrary & Bad In Law. Please Delete The Addition. 3. For That The Tds Claim Of Rs. 5,75,249/- Was Made By The Assessee But The Ld. A.O. Allowed Of Rs. 4,88,302/- Which Is Arbitrary. 4. For That The Ld. Assessing Officer Arbitrarily Added 20% Of The Purchase Without Considering The Prayer Of The Assessee For The Addition @ 2% (N.P.) On Unverified Purchase Of Rs. 51,72,532/-.

23A, N.S. Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AAECS 4100 N] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….................Respondent Ward 3(2) Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, & Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri S.K. Das, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding

PCB ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 2(2). , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 325/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pcb Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 23A, 4Th Floor Vs Tax, Central Circle-2, Kolkata Netaji Subash Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aabcp8195K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 08/02/2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Which Arises For Our Adjudication Relates To The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Expense U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D At Rs.1,92,506/- Being Exempt Income Earned During The Year. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Disposing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits. He Further Submitted That, The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Wrongly Computed The Amount Of Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs. 1,92,506/- Relating To Dividend Income Earned During The Year Whereas, The Assessee Has In Fact Earned Only Rs.72,332/- As Dividend Income.

23A, 4th Floor Vs Tax, Central Circle-2, Kolkata Netaji Subash Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AABCP8195K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT

THE BANK EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-36, , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 362/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Limited,………………………………………………….Appellant 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabat5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Sanbarta Koley, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

23A, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AABAT5298D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-36, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri Sanbarta Koley, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: August 07, 2025 Date