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 under section 14A = 90,099+ (1 % of Rs.45,30,38,502) = 90,099 + 45,30,385 = 46,20,484 The above

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

section 10 applies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure debited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies Act as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only under clause (iii) of Rule

M/S INTER STATE OIL CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 14A by applying Rule 8D at Rs.15,23,813/- and since the assessee- company had already made a disallowance of Rs.3,77,450/-, a further disallowance of Rs.11,46

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) on account of interest was involved in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal upheld the appellate order of ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 6.1 of its order dated

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 to be made under section 14A by applying Rule 8D. 46. We have heard the arguments of both the sides

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 115JB MAT computation is no more res integra. Hon’ble Bombay high court’s judgment in CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment P Ltd.; ITA No.337 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015 and this Tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxman.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) settle this issue in assessee’s favour that such

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

section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure\ndebited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies\nAct as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule

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

section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure\ndebited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies\nAct as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule

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

46,72,000/- & Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance

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

46,72,000/- & Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance

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]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

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]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

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]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

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]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return