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

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing

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

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing

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

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO who proceeded on erroneous belief and misconception of law in disallowing

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said

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

sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) for the alleged delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant Act but deposited before the due date of furnishing the return of income. I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd 2 That the Learned Commissioner of Income

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 14A of the I.T Act, 1961.” 2. Hon’ble President, ITAT nominated Shri G.D Agarwa, Hon’ble Vice President (AZ)KZ) as Third Member. The Hon’ble Third Member vide his order dated 27.05.2011 has concurred with the findings of ld. Accountant Member by observing as under:- “7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused

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

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

36,076/- thereby making the addition of Rs. 1,69,555/-. The Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee failed to furnish any record justifying the use of vehicle wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and thus justified the addition. 5 I.T.A. No.312/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mega Engineers & Builders

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

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

36,092 was disallowed under section 14A of the Act. 12. The AO computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

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

section 36(1)(vii). 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the debts written off by the non-rural branches of the bank are also to be adjusted against the provision allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia). 3. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowances

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

section 36(1)(vii). 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the debts written off by the non-rural branches of the bank are also to be adjusted against the provision allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia). 3. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowances

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)

disallowance of Rs.4,60,032/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF by wrongly invoking provision of section 43B which is relating to employer's contribution to PF while employee contribution to PF is governed by section 36(1)(va) read with section 2

DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am I.T. A. No. 297/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11

section (2) of sec. 36 of the Act have been fulfilled and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we dismiss this ground of appeal preferred by the revenue. 6. Ground No. 2 reads

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]

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