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

72,00,000/-,\nwhich is disallowed as per provision of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act\nand added back

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

72,00,000/-,\nwhich is disallowed as per provision of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act\nand added back

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

72,000/- & Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance without

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

72,000/- & Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance without

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

72,00,000/-,\nPage | 12\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15\nM/s. Coal India Ltd.\nwhich is disallowed as per provision of section

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

72,00,000/-,\nPage 12\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15\nM/s. Coal India Ltd.\nwhich is disallowed as per provision of section

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

disallowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.952839/- from income from other sources ignoring the mandate of section 32(2) read with section 72

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

72,38,59,254/- Rs.36,19,296/-\n9.5. Thus, the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule BD) is\ndetermined of Rs.1,25,21,596/-) 89,02,300/- Rs.36,19,296/-) but\ndisallowed only Rs.1.19,67,718/- (Rs.1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/- (the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/- Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

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

72,38,59,254/- Rs.36,19,296/-\n9.5. Thus, the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule BD) is\ndetermined of Rs.1,25,21,596/-) 89,02,300/- Rs.36,19,296/-) but\ndisallowed only Rs.1.19,67,718/- (Rs.1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/- (the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/- Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

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

72,38,59,254/- i.e. Rs.36,19,296/-\nat\n25.5. Thus the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule 8D) is\ndetermined\nRs.1,25,21,596/-(Rs.89,02,300/-+Rs.36,19,296/-)but\ndisallowed only Rs.1,19,67,718/- [(Rs1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance

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

72,38,59,254/- Rs.36,19,296/-\n9.5. Thus, the actual disallowance of expenses (as envisaged in Rule BD) is\ndetermined of Rs.1,25,21,596/-) 89,02,300/- Rs.36,19,296/-) but\ndisallowed only Rs.1.19,67,718/- (Rs.1,25,21,596/- 5,53,878/- (the\nassessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/- Thus, the disallowance\nunder Rule

ARTLINE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

72,340/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') found that there were investments to the tune of Rs. 29,95,83,000/- which had the potential to yield exempt income in the shape of dividends. Admittedly, during the year under consideration no exempt income was received by this assessee but the ld. AO relied on CBDT Circular

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)

disallowance without any application of mind and hence is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be deleted. 22. FOR THAT the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or substitute the ground or grounds on or before hearing of this appeal.” 2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR initially filed a voluminous paper book which was later abridged and the same

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)

disallowance without any application of mind and hence is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be deleted. 22. FOR THAT the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or substitute the ground or grounds on or before hearing of this appeal.” 2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR initially filed a voluminous paper book which was later abridged and the same

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

72,00,000/- crores on account of provision for mark to market loss\nboth under the normal provisions and while computing book profits under\nsection 115JB of the Act.\n2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals)\nerred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing period\nexpenditure amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.888/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ………. Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata. Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aabcb2066P) …………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr) Appeared For Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 24.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act By Ao, Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 22.03.2021. 2. There Is A Delay Of 93 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By The Revenue Which Is Placed On Record. After Perusal Of The Same, We Notice That I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2023 A Y: 2018-19, Britannia Industries Ltd. Though The Impugned Order Was Passed On 24.03.2023 But The Same Was Received In The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata On 04.08.2023 To This Effect A Certificate Is Filed By The Revenue Authorities. Considering This To Be Reasonable Cause & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by AO, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 22.03.2021. 2. There is a delay of 93 days in filing the instant appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the revenue which is placed on record. After perusal of the same, we notice that I.T.A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

disallowance of Rs.8,90,72,303/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) stands restricted to Rs.27,50,303/- [26,72,16,908 - 26,44,66,605]. These grounds are therefore partly allowed. 11. Ground No. 6 of the appeal relates to computation of short term capital on sale of listed investments following FIFO Method. Briefly stated, the facts

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 37(1) of the Act, which disallows expenses incurred for an unlawful purpose or in violation of law, even where otherwise incurred "wholly and exclusively for business. The restriction on management expenses is mandatory. The IRDA regulations do not merely allocate expense between shareholder and policyholder accounts but create a hard limit on the deductibility for tax purposes