SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU/ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) I.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) 3 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics

FIRST CHOICE READY MIX,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) I.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 & I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 First Choice Ready

PRATAP KUNDU,BANKURA JOGIPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) I.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 & I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 First Choice Ready

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

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

VISHNU COTTON MILLS LTD,2017-18 vs. AO, CIR.11, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1

VISHNU COTTON MILLS LTD,2017-18 vs. AO, CIR.11, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1

RAJA & MITSU FASHIONS,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.471&472/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Raja & Mitsu Fashions….…………………................................……Appellant 156A, Lelin Sarani, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaefr5072P] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru...….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn

RAJA & MITSU FASHIONS,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.471&472/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Raja & Mitsu Fashions….…………………................................……Appellant 156A, Lelin Sarani, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaefr5072P] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru...….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn

SRG EARTH RESOURCES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ASST.DIT,CPC,BENGALURE, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 287/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Srg Earth Resources Private Limited Asst. Dit, Cpc, Bengaluru 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Gandhi House, Dalhousie Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aajcs2276A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. S. Dasgupta, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (2022) 143 Taxmann.Com 178 (Sc) Dated 12.10.2022 Wherein It Has Been Held That “Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman 1002 (Delhi) d) ITO Vs. Gujarat Power Corpn

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.187/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dalmia Laminators Ltd.…………………................................……Appellant 130, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aabcd1748C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri N. S. Saini & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.1.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No.187/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2019-20 Dalmia Laminators Ltd a) CIT Vs. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) (2000) 109 Taxman 342 (SC) b) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) c) Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. UOI (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del) (2002) 125 Taxman

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been raised only in appeal for AY 2015-16 , ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been raised only in appeal for AY 2015-16 , ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services

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

1) of the Act. While disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held that the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss (Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO relied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents are as under

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

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

1) of the Act. While disallowing the provisional losses the AO has held\nthat the appellant has debited the provision for derivative factual loss\n(Market to Market) in the P & L Account and claimed as a deduction. The AO\nrelied over the CBDT instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23 March 2010 regarding\nforeign exchange fluctuation loss whose contents