HARIDAS SOM,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 14/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som V/S. I.T.O. Ward 22(3), Kolkata Pan: Ajhps8867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

70,374/- to M/s Royal Calcutta Turf Club(RCTC) out of which cash amounting to Rs.49,43,544/- was paid in violation of section 40A(3). When confronted, the AIR argued that both the entities under the proprietorship business of the appellant are separate entities with separate agreements with RCTC and with separate staff. Thus, the clubbing of deposits made

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

70 of the order pertains to the correctness of computation of disallowance and giving valid reasons for such computation. The crux of argument of AR is with reference to Section 14(2) which is as under: “The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

70,500 Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Total 3,10,71,000 Average thereof 1,55,35,500 ½% thereof 77,678 Hence I limit the disallowance to Rs.77,678 and the balance amount of disallowance is not sustained.” 33. Having heard both the parties on this issue, we do not subscribe to the reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) that

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

70% in the form of Excise Duty, Vat and T.C.S and the balance 30% is cost of liquor. Sec 40A(3) was originally inserted by the Finance Act 1968 with effect from 1s t April 1969 and amendment in 1996 and 2007. The objective of Sec 40A(3) requiring such payment to be made by crossed cheque or draft

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

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act:] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

3) and since the doctrine of merger was not applicable, the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment and the order passed by the Ld. Principal CIT under section 263 on these issues was barred by limitation. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

MOTOR CH. MONDAL,ASANSOL vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 200/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Motor Ch. Mondal -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-2(2) Sahid Khudi Ram Sarani Asansol Neamatpur, P.O.Sitarampur-713359 [Pan : Afapm 9913K] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri.Rajat Kumar Kureel(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Another sum of Rs.2,18,000/- paid directly to the seller parties by cash. Invoking the provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the Act, the said sum was also disallowed and added to the total income of the Assessee. Thus in all a sum of Rs.82,70

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

3%. Before the Hon'bie Tribunal, it was stated that assessee itself paid 0.6% to ICICI Bank for guaranteeing a separate loan for assessee. Hon'bie Tribunal took the view that 0.5% guarantee fee is reasonable in view of the fact that rate of interest paid by AE was much lower than interest paid by assessee itself. TP adjustment made

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

3%. Before the Hon'bie Tribunal, it was stated that assessee itself paid 0.6% to ICICI Bank for guaranteeing a separate loan for assessee. Hon'bie Tribunal took the view that 0.5% guarantee fee is reasonable in view of the fact that rate of interest paid by AE was much lower than interest paid by assessee itself. TP adjustment made

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

I.T.O WD - 2(3),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S PREMIER TRADERS SELF HELP GROUP (H/O KISHORE MONDAL), BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

70,248.02 17.12.09 to 87,000/- 10,74,000/- 31.12.09 31.12.09 07/09-10 dt. 94,079.48 01.01.10 to 1,71,000/- 12,45,000/- 20.01.10 20.01.10 01.02.10 to 7,27,000/- 19,72,000/- 14.03.10 Total 21,84,772.09 19,72,000/- 19,72,000/- From the above details, AO found that payment has been made in cash exceeding

NARAYAN RICE MILL,BURDWAN vs. CIT, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us Submits That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By An Order Dt. 29-02-2016 Of Itat Pune Bench, Pune & Urged To Dispose Of The Present Appeal In Terms Of The Said Order. Therefore, On Perusal Of The Record & The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Said Decision As Relied On By The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Proceed To Hear The Ld.Ar & Dispose Of The Same On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & On Merits. Therefore, The Adjournment Application Dt. 1-5-2017 Filed By The Revenue Is Rejected.

Section 40A(3). The assessee failed to make any submission on this point. In view of the above stated discussions the order passed by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, proceedings initiated u/s. 263 is as per law. It may be mentioned here that under Rule 6DD(b) payment made

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)

70,35,166/- by restricting provisions of rule 8D(2) (ii) limited to dividend yielding investment ignoring provisions of circular of CBDT No.5/2014 which clarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income. I.T.A No.2199/Kol/2019 M/s Rungta Mines

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

70,09,497/- 17.63% non-related party Tea Sales to 12,09,89,828/- 1,10,83,396/- 9.03% 3 4 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 related party PP Bags At MK PP Sales to 4,14,41,156/- 1,94,50,259/- 46.93% non-related party PP sales

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

70,464/- made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance by dealing with the same in the body of order of assessment by under assessing the same as the sam same in the body of order of assessment by under assessing the same as the sam same in the body of order of assessment by under assessing the same as the same was the subject matter of the appeal

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof he may set aside the assessment and direct the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, plenary powers in disposing

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

70,880/- incurred towards\nprofessional fees to legal advisors which was treated as capital expenditure\nby the A.O.\n2. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in giving part relief to the extent of Rs.86,08,865/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs.95