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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal advisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition of new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed by provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant jurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

section 35D amortization of expenses disallowance of Rs.1,12,60,000/- in the two impugned assessment years. We thus treat the former assessment year 2010-11 as the “lead” assessment year for adjudication of the instant issue. 9. A perusal of the case file suggests that the assessee’s audited accounts of the relevant financial year

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/

c. Rent paid {or Mumbai Office Rs.12,06,482 d. Payment to studio Praxis for Architectural Consultancy fee Rs. 43,200 e. Brokerage paid to Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd Rs. 3,24,000 f. Depreciation on fixed assets installed at Mumbai Office Rs. 3,97,821 g. Preparation of site plan Rs. 10,000 h. Interest on delayed payment

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal advisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition of new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed by provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant jurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal advisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition of new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed by provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant jurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

35D of the Act as well as higher amount of expenses claimed by the assessee during the year as compared to the preceding year. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that during the year, there is a transaction of share capital and share premium received by the assessee at Rs.14,69,50,000/- from issue of 14,69,500 equity shares

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.40,38,000/- & Rs.2,48,10,148/-; respectively. 4. Case file suggests that PCIT termed the foregoing regular assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as follows: I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 M/s. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year

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, 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

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

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

2 in respect of allotment of shares, copy of which is placed at pages no. 18 to 31 of the paper book. The ld. Assessing Officer also conducted independent inquiries in order to verify the genuineness of these transactions by issuing notice under section 133(6) to five share applicants out of total eight share applicants on a test-check

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)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the sum of Rs 7,26,56,048/- and completed the assessment. 4. The ld CITA granted deduction u/s 10B of the Act by observing as under:- “I have examined the submissions made by the Ld. AR , the findings of the AO in the assessment order, perused the facts

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

2. Though the Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic is to be excluded for the purpose

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]

C’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S.Godara, JM] ITA No.1200 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-6(2) -versus- M/s Luxury Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AABCL 9493 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1209 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-6(2) -versus- M/s Linkpoint Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AABCL

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]

C’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S.Godara, JM] ITA No.1200 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-6(2) -versus- M/s Luxury Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AABCL 9493 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1209 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-6(2) -versus- M/s Linkpoint Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AABCL

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]

c) of I. T. Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of total income on this issue.” Aggrieved against the action of AO in both the years, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee and the relevant finding given in AY 2004-05 by CIT(A) in his appellate order in para

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]

c) of I. T. Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of total income on this issue.” Aggrieved against the action of AO in both the years, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee and the relevant finding given in AY 2004-05 by CIT(A) in his appellate order in para

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK CONSTRUCTION CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section of 271 (1)( c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income and secondly the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, these two conditions are found missing. Additions made by the AO and a part of it confirmed by the CIT(A) are all based on estimates where nothing

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BUDGE BUDGE REFINERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance on account of sales tax incentive scheme. The assessee got the benefit of a sum of Rs.6,19,47,252/- being 75% of sales tax/VAT as receivable as Sales Tax Incentive under the scheme of State of West Bengal. The AO has treated the sales tax incentive as capital receipt and added to the income of the assessee