RIDHI VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 4(1) Ridhi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700072, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr9858C Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

6. Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act defines ‘speculative transaction’. As per the Scheme of the Act, a transaction of speculative nature carries a differential treatment qua the non speculative transaction in the matter of set off and carry forward of losses arising therefrom. The proviso to Section 43(5) provides for certain exceptions in varied situation

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6) of section 270A, and the appellant has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the said explanation. Therefore, the action of AO in imposing penalty under section 270A for under reporting of income, in respect of this disallowance, cannot be sustained. iii) Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act: 6.3.3 On these facts

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

6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern\nare part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such\ninvestments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head\n'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular\ncontains the decision of the Board that no appeal would

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 98/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

6. The ld. A/R in argument placed that the Revenue had taken wrongly the implication of Section 43(5) of the Act the normal loss as a trading loss as speculative loss. The ld. A/R submitted his argument that there is no question of any unidentified loss and the assessee had established the genuineness of the transaction. Related to other

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

6 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. the assessee, if the assessee does not file its return of income within the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, we also note that amendment has been introduced in section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act to provide that the claim

INSTYLE TRADELINKS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6,43,238/- was not genuine and disallowed. Accordingly, he added to the income of the assessee. In addition to that he further found that the assessee debited a loss of Rs. 12,89,526/- on securities under the head of other expenses and the ld. AO disallowed the same and added back to the income of the assessee. Further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

6 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and assessee’s additional ground stating that ld. AO should have accepted the disallowance offered by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act and he erred in invoking and applying Rule 8D: 13. We have heard rival

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

6(b) are allowed. 11. Ground No. 7 relates to estimated disallowance of Rs.6689,134/- for the following expenses:- (a) Labour Charges Rs.16,21,585/- (b) Supervision Charges Rs.15,45,276/- (c) Tyre Expenses Rs.20,43,919/- (d) Repairs & Maintenance Rs.14,78,354/- Rs.66,89,134/- The ld. Assessing Officer made the alleged disallowances for want of proper vouchers

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.

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 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return