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

57,227 in respect of indirect expenses attributed to the earning of dividends, and it has even the case of revenue that this disallowance for indirect expenses is unfair or unreasonable. 10. In view of the above discussions, while uphold the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A), we also make it clear that, in our humble understanding

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

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 LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), 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

LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(A), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 524/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowed even in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld DR stated that 11 12 M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd. A.Yr.2012-13 the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are also part of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only and once section 23 of the MSMED Act, 2006 specifically states that the said interest

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of commission paid to non-resident parties. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is mainly engaged in the business of procurement, processing and shipment of tea and jute. The return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed

KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being

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

disallowance I.T.A. Nos. 1953 & 1954/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 & I.T.A. Nos. 2080 & 2081/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Page 6 of 9 under section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of exempt dividend income. Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal thus is partly allowed. 11. As regards the Revenue’s appeal

ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDHIR SATNALIWALA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 452/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Ward 12(2), Kolkata..............................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Sudhir Satnaniwala……………………………………………….............................Respondent 10, Raja Santosh Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Ajvps2252C] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri M. Satnaliwala, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 10, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 30 , 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 12, Kolkata Dated 04.12.2013. 2. In Ground No 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 25,74,066/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Demand For Outstanding Municipal Taxes. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Inter Alia Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Guest House In The Name Of His Proprietary Concern, M/S. Check-In Check-Out. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 23.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 32,18,292/-. In The Profit & Loss Filed

disallowed by the A.O. holding that it was not qualified for the deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act. 4. The disallowance

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under: 21. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Vohra that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under: 21. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Vohra that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRADE APARTMENTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1813/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 14A read with Rule 8D deserves to be deleted in full. 3 4 M/s Trade Apartments Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 The appellant theefore submits that the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 57

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

section 14A vis-à-vis 8D of IT Rules and has made the following disallowances Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Rule 8D(i) NIL 2. Rule 8D(ii) Interest expenses Rs.61,02,750 3. Rule 8D(iii) Administrative expenses Rs.8,57

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

section 14A vis-à-vis 8D of IT Rules and has made the following disallowances Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Rule 8D(i) NIL 2. Rule 8D(ii) Interest expenses Rs.61,02,750 3. Rule 8D(iii) Administrative expenses Rs.8,57

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

section 14A vis-à-vis 8D of IT Rules and has made the following disallowances Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Rule 8D(i) NIL 2. Rule 8D(ii) Interest expenses Rs.61,02,750 3. Rule 8D(iii) Administrative expenses Rs.8,57

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be made while computing the total income under chapter IV of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the computation of book profit is under chapter XIIB and hence section 14A has no implication in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB." 11. We find from the written submission of assessee wherein it has relied