ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

Section 41(l) amounting to Rs.12,97,47,322/- and disallowed bad debts of Rs.5,63,402/-. Against the said

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

Section 41(l) amounting to Rs.12,97,47,322/- and disallowed bad debts of Rs.5,63,402/-. Against the said

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 41(1) of the Act are attracted. But in the instant case, the assessee before us had not written back the sundry creditors in the sum of Rs 1,08,65,202/- to its profit and loss account and had continued to show the same in its balance sheet. Hence the decision relied upon

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowance for responding purchases, no addition could be made under section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors’ outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the Assessing Officer.’ viii) As regards applicability of provisions of section 41

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 115JB and in holding that the issue is purely academic in nature. 40. Ground no’s 1 to 3 relate to upholding the action of the AO by the CIT-A in making disallowances of interest and other expenses u/s. 14A of the Act. 41

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

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

section 14A on account of common and general expenses is required to be made to the extent of 0.5% of average value of investment as provided in the said Rule. The limited contention raised by her is that while computing such disallowance, investment which yielded dividend income during the year under consideration only should be considered. Since this contention

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

41. Sub-section (2) of section 14A, as we have seen, stipulates that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page 9 relation to income which does not form part of the total income "in accordance with such method

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEENLOK ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

disallowance under section 14A on account of expenditure in relation to the earning of exempt dividend income received on shares held as stock-in-trade is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble I.T.A. No. 1351/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 4 of 17 Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhanuka

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

disallowance of Rs. 105,54,53,000/- is deleted. " 40. On considering the above submissions, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, observing as follows: “7. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, submissions of the appellant and the order of my learned predecessor i.e. Commissioner of Income

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

41,66,919/- is to be deleted and we order accordingly. 10. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 19,17,487/- made under rule 8D(2)(iii), we find force in the alternate argument of learned AR that only dividend bearing investment of scrips are to be considered for making disallowance under section

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance is warranted on this account. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, please note that in case of write back of the aforesaid provision, if it is found to be in excess or for any other reasons, the same will liable to tax in view of the provisions of section 41

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 14A would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing