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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

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

disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, for Assessment Year 2017-18 is deleted. 14. Now, we take up the issue of addition towards deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, for the sum received by the assessee 11 I.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 117/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 118/Kol/2023 Assessment

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business and charitable segment thereby rejecting the exemption u/s 11 of the Act in respect of charitable income as allowed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) while making the enhancement relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business and charitable segment thereby rejecting the exemption u/s 11 of the Act in respect of charitable income as allowed by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) while making the enhancement relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. 10% adhoc disallowance made towards 10% adhoc disallowance made towards miscellaneous expenses and miscellaneous expenses and also granted set off of brought forward depreciation of earlier years. On the issue of grant of ought forward depreciation of earlier years. On the issue

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income and applied Rule 8D and computed an additional disallowance ofRs.18,32,751/- u/s 14A of the Act as follows: Rule 8D(2)(i) Expenditure directly relating to exempt income Rs. 77,500/- Rule 8D(2

M/S KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from

ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KOLKATA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.240/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 13, N.S. Road, Rbi Building (Annexe), Kol- 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak6244L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. A. K. Nayak, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2017 Passed In Case No.227/Cit(A)-10/Wd.-35(3)/14-15/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grounds Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse The Cit(A) Action Holding The Assessee Eligible For Section 80P(2)(D) Deduction Of Rs.6,97,20,658/- Disallowed In The Assessment Framed On 08.12.2016. Case File Suggests That The Assessee Had Derived The Impugned Interest Income From Parking Of Its Surplus Funds In Fixed Deposits With The Union Bank Of India & Central Bank Of India Fetching Interest Of Rs.6,48,17,859/- & 49,02,799/-; Respectively. The Assessing Officer Quoted Hon’Ble Apex Court’S Decision In Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Ito (2010) In 188 Taxman 282 (Sc)

disallowed on the ground that this income was not business profit of the assessee society but was income from other sources. The Ld. tribunal has also has held that income from investment in banks and other financial institutions is the business income of the assessee society and it is eligible to get deduction under Section 80P(2

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

2. In both the tax appeals though slightly differently worded, the questions concerning the same assessee are identical and concern the issue of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act granted to the assessee by the Tribunal on captive power generation plant. The second question is with respect to recognising such claim on the basis of purchase price

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1014-15

section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of ₹2,20,70,040/- in the nature of interest income earned from investment in fixed deposits with various banks. ITA No.1868/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Cir-33 Kol. Vs. Central Bank of India Employees Co-op Society Ltd. Page 2 3. This assessee is a co-operative society of employees working with

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2) of Income Tax Act deals with the cases where a capital asset is converted into stock in trade. Whenever a capital asset is converted into stock in trade by an assessee it is deemed as transfer of capital asset and attracts capital gain provisions, in spite of the fact that the ownership of such capital asset doesn't change

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under