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

44 of the Act and override anything to the contrary contained in the provision of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the Act; profits and gains of any business of insurance in sections 28 to 43B or in section 199 of the Act. The disallowance

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule, there could not be any disallowance of the amount written

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

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

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

44,423/- alleging the same as undisclosed income both under\nthe normal provisions and while computing book profits under section\n115JB of the Act.\n4) That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or\nrescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal.”\n2.3 The Revenue has raised the following revised grounds

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

44,423/- alleging the same as undisclosed income both under\nthe normal provisions and while computing book profits under section\n115JB of the Act.\n4) That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or\nrescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal.”\n2.3 The Revenue has raised the following revised grounds

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made if\nthe assessee had not earned any exempt income), as the\nrevenue has not been accepted the said decision and has\npreferred an SLP against the said decision.\n4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in view of\nthe amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to Section

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)

44,000/- was meagre when compared to dividend income earned by the assessee on the investment. 29. As mentioned above, in the preceding paragraph, we held that the Assessing Officer considered the explanation offered by the assessee vide letter dated 18- 12-2012 and recorded his satisfaction as to how the disallowance voluntarily made by the assessee was not acceptable

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant\njurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant\njurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant\njurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section 35D of the Act. In a nutshell, the relevant\njurisdictional facts are that during the subject assessment year

ANUPRIYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

44,956/- 4,15,01,668.66 4,31,43,287.16 Infrastructures Ltd 2 WPIL Limited 1,92,634/- 28,89,510.00 28,89,510.00 Rural Electrification 585/- 6, 300.00 6,300.00 3 Corporation Ltd Total 37,38,175/- 4,43,97,478.66 4,60,39,097.16 8. Further, before us reliance has placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench Kolkata

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 68 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,44