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

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

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

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

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA NO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal with regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become necessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal\nwith regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become\nnecessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal\nwith regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become\nnecessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal\nwith regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become\nnecessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal\nwith regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become\nnecessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

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

section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal\nwith regard to the issue of 14A of the Act alone. Hence it has become\nnecessary for us to adjudicate the issue of disallowance

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.8,93,606/- and instead he ought to have directed the AO to delete the entire disallowance of Rs.23,12,615/- made

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer's liability is to be paid

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

254 (Bombay HC) 2. Everest Kanto Ltd Vs DCIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 19 (Mum Trib) 3. Everest Kanto Ltd Vs Asstt CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Mum Trib) 4. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Adds CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 191/62 SOT 79 (Mum Trib) (URO) 5. Godrej Household products Ltd Vs Adds CIT (2014) 41 taxmann.com 386 (Mum Trib) 6. Asstt

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

254 (Bombay HC) 2. Everest Kanto Ltd Vs DCIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 19 (Mum Trib) 3. Everest Kanto Ltd Vs Asstt CIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Mum Trib) 4. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Adds CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 191/62 SOT 79 (Mum Trib) (URO) 5. Godrej Household products Ltd Vs Adds CIT (2014) 41 taxmann.com 386 (Mum Trib) 6. Asstt

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.”

section 2(24)(x) of the Act in the summary assessment carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. Apart from oral arguments, the assessee has also furnished written submissions, whereby, the assessee in this appeal has raised four contentions in support of his grounds of appeal. Now, I proceed to deal with each of the contention raised

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

254, 144C(5) & 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) Act dated 04.01.2021 against the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi vide Order No. F. No. DRP-2/Del/2018-19/416 dated 28.09.2018 passed u/s. 144C of the Act. 2. This is third round of litigation by the assessee and the relevant facts