DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

disallowance under section 14A can be made. 7. Now coming to the merits of the issue. A perusal of the provision

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. 7. The ld. Counsel

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

7. Aggrieved, assessee challenged the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules

STEWART HOLL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2331/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Stewart Holl (India) Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecs 3091 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section, the disallowance u/s 33AB(7) should be restricted to Rs. 6,318/- as the disallowance of Rs. 15,71,331/- was made

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 43B of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- ‘3(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rural Employment Cess (RE Cess) of INIR 30,44,09,948/- and Primary Education Cess (PE Cess) of INR 7

SHREE ASHOKE PRASAD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act, in our opinion there is violation of section 194C(7) and disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHOKE PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act, in our opinion there is violation of section 194C(7) and disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

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

disallowance of expenses made under section 14A was held to be unsustainable by the Tribunal holding that the provisions of section 14A could not be imported into Clause (f) of Explanation (1) to section 115JA. Respectfully following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Goetze India Limited, we uphold the impugned 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

7. We have gone through the submissions made by both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present case the AO has invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules 1962. Accordingly the AO disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SAROJIT KUMAR DEY, BIRBHUM

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. 2218/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-3, Suri.............................……………………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara Suri, Birbhum -731101 Shri Sarojit Kr. Dey……………….......................................................................Respondent Ahmadpur, Birbhum West Bengal, Pin - 731201 [Pan: Adqpd8637B] Appearances By: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 14, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 13.10.2014 On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Holding Rejection Of The Assessee’S Default In Complying The Provisions Of Section 194C(6) & (7). 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 75,82,759/- & Rs. 38,11,909/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Correct In Law As Well As In Fact In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7,00,000/- Taking The Plea Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Quoted By Mistake In His Order Though The Ao At The Beginning Narrated The Expenses As Per Section 192 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Country Spirit Bottling Plant Cum Warehouse. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration

disallowance is not in order. Further, I find that the appellant has filed form 26Q which corresponds to rule 31A and section 200(3). Since there is no default in complying with provisions of section 194C(7

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TEENLOK ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

disallowed under section 14A. I.T.A. No. 1351/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 5 of 17 7. The ld. counsel

TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act, in our opinion there is violation of section 194C(7) and disallowance

TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

section 115JB of the Act. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the audited financial statement, the assessee-company has sufficient capital and interest-free reserves & surplus to cover up the investment made in equity shares fetching exempt income. It was thus contended that interest disallowance of Rs.11.34 lakhs computed under Rule

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

7. Without prejudice to the Appellant’s claim in Ground No.6 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VI, Kolkata has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,20,90,323 instead of Rs.46,20,484 as offered by the Appellant itself under section

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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-

7. The ld. CIT(D.R.), while challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on the issue of disallowance of interest as made by the Assessing Officer under section

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S RUNGTA MINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd. 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6463N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance under section 14A can be made. 7. Now coming to the merits of the issue. A perusal of the provision