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

section 14A. 3.2 At the outset it is stated that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by the order of Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case for AY 2009-10. (Please refer to page no 27-28 of the Corporate Tax Case Law Compendium (‘CTCL’)). The Revenue filed an appeal before

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section

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

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section

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

disallowance of Rs.77,70,880/- paid as professional fees to legal\nadvisors on the alleged ground that the same are related to either acquisition\nof new unit or expansion of the existing undertaking and is to be governed\nby provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

70,16,761/-. Lastly, the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and the consequence of such disallowance on the computation of “book profit” u/s 115JB of the Act. Since the matter pertaining to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is subject matter of the Department’s appeal

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

70 ,71 and 74. We observe from the perusal of section 2(14) of the Act that shares/securities are treated as capital asset and no exception has been provided in section 2(14) as has been provided in (i) to (vi) to the said section. Further the gain arising from the transfer of long term capital asset is treated

TAJPUR S.K.U.S LTD.,MAHISHADAL, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. LD. DCIT , PRESTIGE ALPHA NO.48/1, 48/2 BERATENAAGRAHARA BEGUR, HOSUR ROAD

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of deduction of ₹7,70,505/- claimed under section 80P of the Act which is not justified and thus

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)

70] ■ A new Enactment or an Amendment meant to explain the earlier Act has to be considered retrospective. The Explanation inserted in section 92B by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2002 commences with the sentence 'for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that'. [Para 72] I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited ■ An Amendment made with

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)

70] ■ A new Enactment or an Amendment meant to explain the earlier Act has to be considered retrospective. The Explanation inserted in section 92B by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1-4-2002 commences with the sentence 'for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that'. [Para 72] I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited ■ An Amendment made with

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A and rule 8D, hence the\naddition be deleted.\n3. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law, as well as in fact by not considering the\nsubmission of the applicant about the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii)\namount of expenditure related to earning of the exempt income for\n₹16,29,044 only and rather affirming the amount

CENTURY COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcc0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

70,47,774/-, which comes to Rs.18,31,798/- and thereafter disallowed half percent on the average value of investment, i.e. Rs.12,22,29,000/- which comes to Rs.6,11,145/-. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses under section

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]

section 14A of the Act, deduction claimed u/s 80IE of the Act and travelling and conveyance. 3 I.T.A. No. 1358/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sublime Agro limited 5. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed as the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed

M/S. PANCHIRAM NAHATA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

70,374/-. If we consider the net interest expenditure of Rs.6,12,354/- and place into the formula for the purpose of computing income under Rule 8D(2), the interest disallowance will come at Rs.4,025/- only and, therefore, the interest disallowance cannot exceed this sum of Rs.4,025/-. So far as the disallowance under Section

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?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which