TAPAS KUMAR SARKAR,BARASAT, NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance was to be restricted to 30% of expenses on which TDS was not done as against the earlier rate of 100% on account of the amendment in the provision of section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 01/04/2015. These contentions were examined by the Ld. CIT(A), but were not found acceptable. However, the Bench was of the view

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed the interest on borrowed fund.” 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant is the owner of the railway siding and is entitle for depreciation. The addition of Rs.10,29,796/- is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. “ 23. The learned DR submits that the assessing officer

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed the same without making any discussion whatsoever. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was pointed out by the assessee that the said expenditure on account of turnover fees pertaining to earlier years was claimed in the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 43B on payment basis. The ld. CIT(Appeals) accordingly allowed the deduction claimed

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAVLON PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1458/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O. Ward 1(3) Kolkata .............................…………………………......................Appellant Room No. 11A, 4Th Floor, Aayakr Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 M/S. Ravlon Properties (P) Ltd.……………………………………………….........Respondent 35, C.R. Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 12. [Pan: Aaccr3164P] Appearances By: Shri P.B. Pramanick, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 06, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 26.02.2014 On The Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs. 1,91,90,538/- On Undisclosed Income Of The Assessee By Admitting Fresh Evidences From The Assessee In Contravention To Rule 46A Of The I.T. Rules & Without Giving A Finding As To What Prevented The Taxpayer To Adduce Evidences Before The Assessing Officer. Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Deleting Disallowance Of Rs. 2,24,877/- U/S 14A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Read With Rule 8D Without Considering The Fact That Nexus Between The Interest Earned & Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Could Not Be Established By The Assessee Before The Assessing Officer. Moreover, The Ld.

46A of the I.T. Rules and without giving a finding as to what prevented the taxpayer to adduce evidences before the Assessing Officer. ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,24,877/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D without

ITO, WD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK MALIK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

46A by the Ld. CIT(A) and since this position is clearly evident from the record available before us including especially the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A), we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowances made by the A.O. under section

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 80IA(10) of the Act and accepted similar profitability of the eligible Assam unit, then without pointing out the change in facts or the position of law, we hold that the AO could not have disputed the profitability of the said unit in the relevant year in question. Useful reference in this regard may be made to the following

ACIT, CIRCLE-41, NADIA, NADIA vs. M/S SAKTINAGAR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITY LTD., NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). He has contended that the assessee thus got such opportunity for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) and there is no violation of Rule 46A

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ROSSELL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

sections (2) and (3) of sec. 14A and Sub-rule(l) of Rule 80, assessing officer had rightly invoked the said Rules for determining that portion of interest which is to be disallowed u/s 14A. Ld. CIT(A)'s observation was not correct more so when no opportunity was allowed to A.O. under Rule 46A

M/S RAIGANJ COMMUNICATION,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of rent paid was unjustified Held, yes [para 4.1] 4.2 Similar issue has also been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of Cuttack in the case of DCIT v. Sri Santibrata Saha in ITA No. 651/Kol/2013 dated 27.11.2013 for the AY 2007-08, for the sake of clarity, the relevant extract of para

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

section 36(1)(viia) for the year under consideration is allowable as deduction separately and the ld. CIT(Appeals), in our opinion, is not justified to reduce the same in the working made by him while allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of bad debts written off to the extent of Rs.14

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the 1. T . Act., 1961.” 11. The Ld. DR submits the assessee did not supply any evidence before AO in support of his claim regarding the heads of which the AO made the additions. The Ld. DR referred to para no.6.4 and argued that the CIT(A) having accepting the new evidences

ITO, WARD-32(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RAGHUNATH EXPORTERS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 40A(2)(b) was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no mention or clause in the Partnership Deed allowing such remuneration. I.T.A. No. 2166/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 4 of 10 Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee, however, produced a supplementary deed made on 1st day of April, 2008 incorporating

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

46A by non affording the AO to give his comments on the fresh evidences or counter the same before deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,20,65,587/-.” 25. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed total expenditure under the head professional and consultancy fees, during the year under consideration, at Rs.3

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

46A by non affording the AO to give his comments on the fresh evidences or counter the same before deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,20,65,587/-.” 25. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed total expenditure under the head professional and consultancy fees, during the year under consideration, at Rs.3

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

46A by non affording the AO to give his comments on the fresh evidences or counter the same before deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,20,65,587/-.” 25. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed total expenditure under the head professional and consultancy fees, during the year under consideration, at Rs.3

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

46A by non affording the AO to give his comments on the fresh evidences or counter the same before deleting the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,20,65,587/-.” 25. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed total expenditure under the head professional and consultancy fees, during the year under consideration, at Rs.3

ARIRUZ ZAMAN KAZI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-49(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has pointed out from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) that there is no mention of such documents filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and as per the observations recorded specifically by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee, in fact, failed

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 32(iia) of the Income Tax Act additional depreciation is available when the plant and machinery were not installed at any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house. It is allowable only on plant & machinery used for the manufacturing process. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the opinion