BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') dated 05.03.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/144B of the Act dated 12.09.2022. I.T.A. No.: 1021/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeals in ITA Nos. 1696 & 1697/KOL/2019 are barred by limitation by 39 days. The Revenue has filed petitions for condonation of delay which are extracted as under: 1696/KOL/2019: Dates Events/Reasons 10.04.2019 Appeal order

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

250 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural\njustice.\n2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the\nLd. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the deduction u/s 54F of the Act on\nthe ground that the appellant did not deposit the sale proceeds of his old\nproperty

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

250% which has been achieved 5 Unisys Softwares and Holding Ind. Ltd.: AY: 2011-12 in only a span of 4 months time. Thereafter the price of shares kept on increasing further and reached a high of Rs. 272/- as on 12.11.2012. 2.2. During this period of phenomenal price rise, no corporate announcement has been made by M/s Unisys Software

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance shall work out to Rs. 2,20,545/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13.3. For Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.1,40,266/- whereas assessee has suo-moto disallowed a sum of Rs.4,45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance shall work out to Rs. 2,20,545/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13.3. For Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.1,40,266/- whereas assessee has suo-moto disallowed a sum of Rs.4,45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance shall work out to Rs. 2,20,545/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13.3. For Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.1,40,266/- whereas assessee has suo-moto disallowed a sum of Rs.4,45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

4,41,09,065/- and, therefore, the correct amount of disallowance shall work out to Rs. 2,20,545/- and the same is hereby confirmed. 13.3. For Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.1,40,266/- whereas assessee has suo-moto disallowed a sum of Rs.4,45,692/- and has mentioned in the audit report

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 6,18,17,507/- u/s 80IA of the Act. Brief history of the case is as under as extracted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A): 3.1. CASE HISTORY: Subsequently, Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the abovementioned appellate order. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 25- 07-2014 (combined

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2018-19 & 2020-\n21 dated 05.05.2025 and 23.04.2025, respectively. Since the issues\nrelate to the common assessee, therefore, they are being decided vide\nthis common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

BISWANATH HOSIERY MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated 09.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That a search and seizure was conducted in the case

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the loss of Rs.59,58,100/- from trading in derivatives when contract notes were duly submitted evidencing the genuineness of the transactions 6. That on facts and in circumstances of the case, National Faceless Assessment Unit erred in adding arbitrary commission expenses of Rs.1,14,050/- when no such expense was actually incurred by the assessee. 7. That

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by restricting the disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by restricting the disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Kolkata [in I.T.A. No.: 498/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.12.2019 arising out of the Assessment Order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2018. 2. Registry has informed that

GIASUDDIN SHAIKH,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18, dated 31.01.2024, passed against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 09.12.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts