M/S INTER STATE OIL CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by referring to Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35D, whereas the claim

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D

M/S KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Section 35D of the Act. The AO opined that the deployment of funds from IPO is only enhanced the working capacity and it is not an extension of existing industrial undertaking. The CIT-A confirmed the disallowance

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

35D of the Act and was confirmed by the CIT(A) which is evident from para-3 of page-2 of impugned order. Therefore, ground No.1 raised by the revenue is misconceived and is dismissed. 14. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is relating to delation of disallowance of Rs.7,23,60,000/- made on account of loss

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

35D of the Act and was confirmed by the CIT(A) which is evident from para-3 of page-2 of impugned order. Therefore, ground No.1 raised by the revenue is misconceived and is dismissed. 14. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is relating to delation of disallowance of Rs.7,23,60,000/- made on account of loss

DCIT/ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs. 4,34,000/- the limited relief that the learned counsel for the assessee has sought is for allowing the deduction only to the extent of Rs. 86,800/- being 1/5th of the total share issue expenses u/s 35D of the Act. It is observed that the case of the assessee on this issue

ACIT, CIRCLE - 41, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ANMOL TEXTILES,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2031/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-41, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anmol Textiles [Pan: Aadfn 4059 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 35D of the Act. When it was again claimed for the Assessment Year 1996-97, though it was disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

disallowed the same. The Ld. A.O made further from heads of 'Preparation of Site plan' of Rs.10,000/­, 'Registration of Lease Deed' of Rs.30,500/­, 'Interest on TDS' of Rs.45,319/­, 'TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 35D. Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that Debenture issue expenditure is revenue expenditure and such expenditure is admissible as a deduction against profits of the year as under :- (i) India Cements Ltd Vs. CIT - 60 ITR 52 ( SC) (ii) CIT Vs East India Hotels Ltd - 252 ITR 860 ( Cal) (iii) CIT Vs. South India Corpn. ( Agencies

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

35D deduction claim & exemption on profit from joint venture(s) and section 14A disallowance involving Rs.1,12,60,000/-, Rs.40

M/S. AASTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 35D of the Act and accordingly Rs.16,200/- was disallowed in the assessment framed under section 147 read with

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ICA EDUSKILL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 35D on account of preliminary expenses in Schedule 12D annexed to balance sheet. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has not disallowed

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUXURY VYAPAAR PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

disallowance made of expenditure under section 35D.” 6. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINKPOINT DEALCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

disallowance made of expenditure under section 35D.” 6. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred

ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed the amortization expenses u/s. 35D of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of assessee to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us explained that the expenditure was capital in nature is not denied but the assessee has claimed only one-fifth of the expenditure u/s. 35D

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

disallowed the amortization expenses u/s. 35D of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of assessee to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us explained that the expenditure was capital in nature is not denied but the assessee has claimed only one-fifth of the expenditure u/s. 35D