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

254 (SC) goes to suggest that section 43A does not apply but on\nactual payment after the amendment the appellant has gone under hedging\nand loss for entire future period for which the payment is still to be made.\nOnce the payment is not made the same should not have been debited.\nTherefore, the AO has disallowed

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

254 (SC) goes to suggest that section 43A does not apply but on\nactual payment after the amendment the appellant has gone under hedging\nand loss for entire future period for which the payment is still to be made.\nOnce the payment is not made the same should not have been debited.\nTherefore, the AO has disallowed

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

254 (SC) goes to suggest that section 43A does not apply but on\nactual payment after the amendment the appellant has gone under hedging\nand loss for entire future period for which the payment is still to be made.\nOnce the payment is not made the same should not have been debited.\nTherefore, the AO has disallowed

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 41(1) at the same rate, there was no loss to the Revenue. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the stand of assessee and rejecting the I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 12 of 34 same, he proceeded

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

254 (SC) goes to suggest that section 43A does not apply but on\nactual payment after the amendment the appellant has gone under hedging\nand loss for entire future period for which the payment is still to be made.\nOnce the payment is not made the same should not have been debited.\nTherefore, the AO has disallowed

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

254 (SC) goes to suggest that section 43A does not apply but on\nactual payment after the amendment the appellant has gone under hedging\nand loss for entire future period for which the payment is still to be made.\nOnce the payment is not made the same should not have been debited.\nTherefore, the AO has disallowed

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 37(1) is not attracted. In view of the above, it is to be held that the disallowance of Rs.6,55,30,392/- as made by the AO in the impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore on the facts of the case the addition of Rs.6,55,30,392/- is deleted.” 3 I.T.A No.1531/Kol/2017 M/s. Rngta Mines

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance on account of unverifiable payments of Rs.4,30,31,106/- included under the head ‘miscellaneous’. 4. Against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.12.2009 giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, an appeal was again preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). In the said appeal, the assessee raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity

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

254/- i.e. Rs.36,19,296/-\nat\n25.5. Thus the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule 8D) is\ndetermined at Rs.1,25,21,596/-(Rs.89,02,300/-+Rs.36,19,296/-)but\ndisallowed only Rs.1,19,67,718/- [(Rs1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

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

254/- i.e. Rs.36,19,296/-\nat\n25.5. Thus the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule 8D) is\ndetermined at Rs.1,25,21,596/-(Rs.89,02,300/-+Rs.36,19,296/-)but\ndisallowed only Rs.1,19,67,718/- [(Rs1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

disallowed. Although the assessee had relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Woodward Governor Pvt. Ltd (312 ITR 254) and ONGC vs CIT (322 ITR 180), the AO has attempted to distinguish the appellant's factual situation, without actually bringing forth the distinction. According to the AO, the case decided

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

disallowed. Although the assessee had relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Woodward Governor Pvt. Ltd (312 ITR 254) and ONGC vs CIT (322 ITR 180), the AO has attempted to distinguish the appellant's factual situation, without actually bringing forth the distinction. According to the AO, the case decided

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

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

disallowance. In essence, thus, the Assessing Officer was required to pass a fresh order of assessment which was necessary on account of an order passed by the Tribunal under section 254

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

254/- i.e. Rs.36,19,296/-\nat\n25.5. Thus the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule 8D) is\ndetermined\nRs.1,25,21,596/-(Rs.89,02,300/-+Rs.36,19,296/-)but\ndisallowed only Rs.1,19,67,718/- [(Rs1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

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

254/- i.e. Rs.36,19,296/-\nat\n25.5. Thus the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule 8D) is\ndetermined at Rs.1,25,21,596/-(Rs.89,02,300/-+Rs.36,19,296/-)but\ndisallowed only Rs.1,19,67,718/- [(Rs1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance . The assessee's instant substantive ground is accepted. The Assessing Officer is direction to verify all the relevant facts and allow the impugned cess (es) as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The assessee's appeal I.T.A. No. 685/Ko/2014 is partly accepted in above terms." However, the ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before the Bench that the Income

MSTC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT(OSD) CIT - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "At this stage, we are concerned only with para 9 which deals with revenue items. Para 9 of AS-11 recognizes exchange differences as income or expense. In cases where, e.g., the rate of dollar rises vis-a-vis the Indian rupee, there is an I.T.A. No. 1536/KOL./2013 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

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the amounts are liable to be added as income in the hands of the assessee, the disallowance so made are confirmed and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 33. Now, we are left with the common issue for Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18, regarding disallowance on account