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

65,000/-\nas dividend which has been claimed to be exempt as income u/s. 10(34) of\nthe Income Tax Act. The assessee has not offered any disallowance u/s.\n14A in respect of earning of exempt income.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked why\ndisallowance u/s. 14A would not be made on expenditures incurred in\nrespect

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

65,000/-\nas dividend which has been claimed to be exempt as income u/s. 10(34) of\nthe Income Tax Act. The assessee has not offered any disallowance u/s.\n14A in respect of earning of exempt income.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked why\ndisallowance u/s. 14A would not be made on expenditures incurred in\nrespect

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

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

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

M/S. 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

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

65,88,50,000/- should not be added to the total income while computing book profit of the assessee." 7. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 11,73,20,000/- being the provision for Bad Debts, should not be considered

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and minor other disallowances were made and the same can be deciphered from the following chart:- Issues AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Disallowance u/s 14A 16,73,473 18,00,595 65

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

BARODA AGENTS & TRADING CO.(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 437/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Baroda Agents & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Birla Building Vs Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata 4Th Floor 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacb1472G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 08/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Four Grounds Of Appeal, But They All Relate To The Addition Made Under Section 14A Of The Act At Rs.23,46,339/-. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Agency Business, Trading, Finance & Investment Activities. Nil Income Declared In The Return Filed On 29/09/2009. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. So Far As The Issue Under Consideration Before Us Is Concerned, We Notice That The Assessee Has Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.1,25,17,598/-. The Assessee Has 2

65% of the total expenditure of Rs.39,26,155/- incurred during the year thereby disallowing Rs.23,46,339/- [Rs.25,52,000/- (-) Rs,2,05,661/-]. 5.1. We notice that the assessee has provided a computation calculating the disallowance at Rs.2,05,661/- suo moto offered under section

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance is called for by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business