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

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\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

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

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\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

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

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\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

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

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\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

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

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed in the hands of assessee by the ld. AO. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by sustaining the order passed by the ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5). 6.5. Assessee also contended that in the preceding years i.e. AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 have been assessed u/s. 143(3) wherein no such disallowance

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-12(1), KOLKATA-12(1), KOL. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 43(5). 6.5. Assessee also contended that in the preceding years i.e. AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 have been assessed u/s. 143(3) wherein no such disallowance

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts in adding the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts in adding the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

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

disallowance while making MAT computation on account of section 14A which was neither subject matter of draft order nor was subject matter of adjudication by Ld. DRP. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not granting withholding tax credit to the extent of Rs. 4,03,309/- without assigning

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

disallowance while making MAT computation on account of section 14A which was neither subject matter of draft order nor was subject matter of adjudication by Ld. DRP. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not granting withholding tax credit to the extent of Rs. 4,03,309/- without assigning

AASHIRWAD VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 43(5)(d) and (e) have not been applied in proper perspective on the correct factual matrix of the case. We also find that there are observations which are contrary to the conclusions drawn while passing the respective orders by the authorities below. 6. In the course of assessment, Ld. AO has proposed to treat the loss on sale

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) The Departmental Representative;\n(6) Guard File\nTRUE COPY\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nKolkata Benches, Kolkata\nLaha/Sr. P.S.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Sreeleathers Limited, filed its return declaring total income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D, adding back Rs.47,43

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

5 for statistical purposes only.\"\nPage 14\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15\nM/s. Coal India Ltd.\n4.2 It is submitted that based on the above judgment, it may be\ninferred that if equal treatment is accorded to the foreign exchange\ngains (i.e. offered to tax), then based

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

5. Regarding the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1.47 Crores under Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D is concerned, the Ld. AR took us through the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014- 15, etc. It was averred that following these decisions there could not have been any disallowance whatsoever

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

5. Regarding the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1.47 Crores under Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D is concerned, the Ld. AR took us through the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014- 15, etc. It was averred that following these decisions there could not have been any disallowance whatsoever