JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

4)(c) of the Act. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,87,73,760/- made by the Assessing Officer at the time of computation of book profit ignoring the clear provision of clause (f) of Explanation I to section 115JB

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

4)(c) of the Act. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,87,73,760/- made by the Assessing Officer at the time of computation of book profit ignoring the clear provision of clause (f) of Explanation I to section 115JB

D.C.I.T.CC - XXVIII,KOL., KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case”. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the addition

M/S THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249/- . No disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to such exempt income was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Learned AO invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The Learned AO applied Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of average value of investments and disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs.15,392/-. (4).Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to addition of Rs.6,43,440/- on account of unexplained investment deleted by the ld. CIT(A) admitting additional evidence. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs.15,392/-. (4).Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to addition of Rs.6,43,440/- on account of unexplained investment deleted by the ld. CIT(A) admitting additional evidence. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission

M/S TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

4 taken by the appellant is dismissed.” Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 7. Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which is running from pages 1 to 412 and reiterated the arguments that were made before the Ld. CIT(A) whereas Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Authorities Below

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

4 taken by the appellant is dismissed.” Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 7. Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which is running from pages 1 to 412 and reiterated the arguments that were made before the Ld. CIT(A) whereas Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Authorities Below

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

249(4) being fulfilled, the impugned denial of the admission of the appeal for disposal on merit was erroneous, uncalled for and bad in law. 3) That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having failed to appreciate that although no return u/s.l39(1)/139(4A) was filed, but the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148(1) shall

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

4 shares in group companies. Ld. AR further stated that only reason for disallowance of loss was alleged “colorable device to reduce the burden of tax”. Now, the question that has to be considered is as to whether the genuine and legal transactions resulting in reduction of taxes could be considered as colorable transaction. In the aforesaid decision

M/S. ZENITH EXPORTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

249/- Profit on sale of assets Rs. 23,315/- I.T.A. No. 1845/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 5 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of export of leather Hand Gloves, silk fabrics and made-ups, manufacture of yarns and 100% natural silk fabrics. The return of income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case