DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

72 containt he cash flow statement of M/s PPL as on 17.3.2007. The details of various unaccounted expenses. The last mentioned head of expenses amounting to Rs. 22.345 lakhs is not accounted for. The quantum of unaccounted expenses under the heads needs to be determined. Pages 75 to 87 contained the details of cash received and payment made

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

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

72,96,81,920/- for the year under consideration in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/144 vide an order dated 22.03.2013. 5. The records of the assessment made under section 143(3)/144 in the case of the assessee thereafter came to be examined by the ld. Pr. CIT and on such examination, he found that the assessee

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of 34 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 [or sub-section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub- section (3)) of section 74 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A]. 9. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that a loss sustained during the year by an assessee under the head Business Profits & Gains

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no obligation upon the appellant to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 195(1) of the Act against the amount paid

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no obligation upon the appellant to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 195(1) of the Act against the amount paid

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, being the Unit shall be allowed to be carried forward or set off. (7) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the profits derived from the export of articles or things or services (including computer

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

72,60,000/- on both Donation and GSR expenses also[50°/o of Rs. 1,45,20,000/- (Donation Rs. 10,20,000/- + Rs. Expenses on CSR activities Rs. 1,35,00,000/-)]. The Assessing Officer accepted and allowed the assessee’s claim u/s. 80G of I.T. Act while completing assessment u/s 143(3). As per the above provision

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

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

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

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

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

72,18,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, the ld. representatives of both the sides have agreed that Rule 8D is applicable only from A.Y. 2008-09 and the disallowance under section 14A for the years prior

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) on account of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 34,02,72

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) on account of assessee’s claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 34,02,72