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 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

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

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

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

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]

37,490/- under Rule 80(2)(iii) is concerned, we find that before the lower authorities the assessee had raised the plea that no disallowance u/s 14A was warranted since the assessee was a dealer in shares although in its Balance Sheet, shares were disclosed under the head "Investments". We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent

M/S MERINO PANEL PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. Situation 2 : The company

M/S MERINO INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. Situation 2 : The company

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 2(37) of the Companies Act, 2013 also is in similar lines. 8.11 In the light of the aforesaid legal proposition, this court comes to a conclusion that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the ESOP expenditure is revenue in nature and the assessee is entitled for deduction. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Tribunal in deleting

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

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.” 6. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) which squarely covers the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. Ground Nos.1 & 2

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

section 35D of I.T. Act, 1961 and it is observed that the said\nexpenditure does not qualify for deduction either u/s.36(2) or 37(1) as the\nsaid unit is not yet operational during this year. Further, the details of\nprofessional activities done by Borel & Barbey according to the work sheet\nfiled by the assessee during the course of hearing

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

section 35D of I.T. Act, 1961 and it is observed that the said\nexpenditure does not qualify for deduction either u/s.36(2) or 37(1) as the\nsaid unit is not yet operational during this year. Further, the details of\nprofessional activities done by Borel & Barbey according to the work sheet\nfiled by the assessee during the course of hearing

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

section 35D of I.T. Act, 1961 and it is observed that the said\nexpenditure does not qualify for deduction either u/s.36(2) or 37(1) as the\nsaid unit is not yet operational during this year. Further, the details of\nprofessional activities done by Borel & Barbey according to the work sheet\nfiled by the assessee during the course of hearing

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

section 10 applies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure debited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies Act as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only under clause (iii) of Rule

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

2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent of ₹40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team has pointed out certain objections during the course of audit before the ld. Assessing Officer and then ld. Assessing Officer proposed these issues to the ld. PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We have also examined the audit objections raised by the audit

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

2,27,83,684/- as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, not disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section