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

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

40,89,253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

40,89,253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

40,89,253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

1 of the appeal\nis dismissed.\n24. Ground No. 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

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "1685/Kol/2017", "34/JAL/CIT(A)/JAL/2015-16", "115-O", "115-P", "36(1)(via)", "6ABA", "36(1)(viia)", "40(a)(ia)", "194J", "194-I", "271C", "194LBB", "194J", "194-I", "36(1)(va)", "40(a)(ia)" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved the correct status of the assessee (Co-operative Society vs. Company), the applicability of dividend distribution tax, disallowances

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of 34 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of ₹50,05,666 and 26,24,969 under

TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia): The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of ₹50,05,666 and 26,24,969 under

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 37(1), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

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]

1)(va) to deposit 5 AY: 2017-18 Dalmia Laminators Ltd. the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure