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

Section 115JB of the 1. T.Act, 1961 for deleting the disallowance of Rs.108,45,17,830/- made while computing taxable income under normal computational provisions.” 38. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 30.12.2010 disallowed an amount of Rs.108,45,17,830/- on account of amortisation of premium paid for purchase of securities by observing in the assessment order

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

disallowance under section 14A is called for when the assessee has not incurred and claimed any expenditure for earning the exempt income. 16. Similar views were also expressed by the Coordinate Benches in the case of Relaxo Footwears Ltd, vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 102 and Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2012) 54

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 of Rs.60,54,560/- made by the Assessing officer under section 40A(i) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals

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-

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the actual investment capable of yielding exempt income as on 31.03.2014 was Rs.71

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115JB of the Act was computed at ₹725,48,54,507/- vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2017 had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115JB of the Act was computed at ₹725,48,54,507/- vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2017 had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54 and 54F of the Act while passing order 263/153A/l43

ACIT, CIR.-10(2), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

54,17,949/- repeated under section 14A. Meanwhile, the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment originally passed under section 143(3) was disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia on the issue of disallowance

M/S GHOSH & CHAKRABORTY TRANSPORT,BURDWAN vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance of Rs.29,38,990/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source as required by the provisions of section 194C. 3. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is carrying on the business

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)

54. 65. 000/ - + 407 1. 34.98. 000/ - ) / 2 = 3931,94,81,000/ - Thus D= 11,63,470 AXB/C=9,69,97,971/- X 812,10,87,625 / 3931,94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule

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)

54. 65. 000/ - + 407 1. 34.98. 000/ - ) / 2 = 3931,94,81,000/ - Thus D= 11,63,470 AXB/C=9,69,97,971/- X 812,10,87,625 / 3931,94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule

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)

54. 65. 000/ - + 407 1. 34.98. 000/ - ) / 2 = 3931,94,81,000/ - Thus D= 11,63,470 AXB/C=9,69,97,971/- X 812,10,87,625 / 3931,94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule

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)

54. 65. 000/ - + 407 1. 34.98. 000/ - ) / 2 = 3931,94,81,000/ - Thus D= 11,63,470 AXB/C=9,69,97,971/- X 812,10,87,625 / 3931,94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-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

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

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

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

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