M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed. Now let us examine whether the deduction specified under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is available to the present assessee i.e. Allahabad bank. The relevant portion of the section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is reproduced below : Explanation.- In this clause,- (a) “specified entity” means,- (i) A financial corporation specified in section 4A21 of the Companies

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed. Now let us examine whether the deduction specified under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is available to the present assessee i.e. Allahabad bank. The relevant portion of the section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is reproduced below : Explanation.- In this clause,- (a) “specified entity” means,- (i) A financial corporation specified in section 4A21 of the Companies

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

36(1)(va) 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Explanation-2 – – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the s, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to provisions

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.”

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;” A perusal of clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;” A perusal of clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORBIS POWER VENTURE PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

36(1)(iii) or under section 37 of the Act. Hence, these two expenditures are disallowed in full as they

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above we confirm the order of ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,59,52,944/-. 27. Ground No. 9 raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of disallowance

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income of Rs. Nil and book profit

M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was made of Rs. 1,35,72,058/- against the dividend income of Rs. 98,98,000/- earned by the assessee during the year. Thus the assessed income was computed at Rs. 70,97,780/-. 3 I.T.A. No.1228 /Kol/2019 AY: 2012-13 Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation ltd. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

iii) Heart Lung machine iv) Cobalt Therapy unit v) Colour Doppler vi) SPECT Gamma Camera vii) Vascular Angiography system including Digital subtraction Angiography viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;” A perusal of clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;” A perusal of clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account

M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’bleGujrat High Court in the case of M/s Gujrat State Road Transport (supra) and ITAT (Mumbai) decision in the case of M/s LKP Securities(supra) that the employees contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed only

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’bleGujrat High Court in the case of M/s Gujrat State Road Transport (supra) and ITAT (Mumbai) decision in the case of M/s LKP Securities(supra) that the employees contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed only

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’bleGujrat High Court in the case of M/s Gujrat State Road Transport (supra) and ITAT (Mumbai) decision in the case of M/s LKP Securities(supra) that the employees contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed only

TRIDENT SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowed the payment made towards these funds by relying on CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 and by taking note of the decision of Hon’bleGujrat High Court in the case of M/s Gujrat State Road Transport (supra) and ITAT (Mumbai) decision in the case of M/s LKP Securities(supra) that the employees contribution to PF/ESI can be allowed only