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

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be deleted. XI. FOR THAT the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit are otherwise erroneous in law and/or on facts and are liable to be set aside. XII. FOR THAT the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 50,51,380/- and also adding this amount for computing income u/s 115JB of the Act. (iii) Disallowance on account of principal repayment of lease rental at Rs. 3,38,64,203/-. (iv) Addition of Rs 4,47,59,532/- on account of cash deposits made

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 50,51,380/- and also adding this amount for computing income u/s 115JB of the Act. (iii) Disallowance on account of principal repayment of lease rental at Rs. 3,38,64,203/-. (iv) Addition of Rs 4,47,59,532/- on account of cash deposits made

TECHNO ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED. ,NOIDA vs. A.O, C.C-2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 14A of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) accept the contention 3 I.T.A. No.1124/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Techno Electric & Engineering Company Limited of the assessee to the extent that part of investments in equity shares were made out of its own funds and reduced the amount of disallowance made by AO u/s 14A read with Rule

CHITRAGUPTA SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 127/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Chitragupta Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd.,……Appellant 39, Shree Centre, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaccc4454B] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),....Respondent Kolkata-27, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

57,630/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) dated 20.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) dated 23.08.2019 along with the detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Later notice under section 142(1) was issued along with detailed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1500/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Room No. 20, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Cheviot Company Limited,.................Respondent 9Th Floor, Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 12Th , 2023 O R D E R

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.55,57,150/- as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,88,57

SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

57,083/- is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the Learned CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the said disallowance without considering the facts and legal position which is totally unjustified and the said disallowance is liable to deleted. 2.2. For That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no disallowance under section

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 7. For that the Assessing Officer has erred

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 7. For that the Assessing Officer has erred

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team has pointed out certain objections during the course of audit before the ld. Assessing Officer and then ld. Assessing Officer proposed these issues to the ld. PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We have also examined the audit objections raised by the audit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEY'S MEDICAL (U.P.) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance should be qualified for non deduction u/s 194C. 3. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of sales promotion expenses. Ld.CIT(A) inappropriately accepting such sales promotion expenses by inappropriately accepting the business purpose of the associate company. 4. That on the fact

MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

57,03,070/- by way of interest on loan. The Id.\nAO further noted that as on 31.03.2014, the assessee has long term\nand short-term borrowings at ₹59.67 crores. The Id. AO noted that the\nassessee has also given some non-interest-bearing advances during\nthe year. Accordingly, a show cause was issued to the assessee as to\nwhy

JANKALYAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,...................Appellant 10, West Ghosh Para Lane, Jagatdal, 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcj8598E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 48/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.,.........................Appellant 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aakcs1284P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107

section 143(1)/143(1)(a) is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustment. 2 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 3. In brief, the grievance of both the assessees is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,77,55,593/- in the case of Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.) and Rs.1,08,57

SUNBEAM VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 776/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.,...................Appellant 10, West Ghosh Para Lane, Jagatdal, 24-Parganas (North)-743125, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcj8598E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 48/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.,.........................Appellant 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aakcs1284P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.........Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107

section 143(1)/143(1)(a) is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustment. 2 Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 3. In brief, the grievance of both the assessees is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,77,55,593/- in the case of Jankalyan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.) and Rs.1,08,57

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

57,576/- from units of mutual funds under liquid fund scheme. Investment in non- current investment was made prior to FY 2011-12 and no fresh investment was made during the year. It is important to mention herein that the matter pertaining to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee during

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR 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

disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 010. The issue raised in ground no.1 of appeal is against the deletion of addition