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 u/s. 14A\nof the Act.\n6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in restricting the Addition of Rs.2,97,71,945/- being expenses\nincurred on exempt income, while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the\nAct and directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (1

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 u/s. 14A\nof the Act.\n6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in restricting the Addition of Rs.2,97,71,945/- being expenses\nincurred on exempt income, while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the\nAct and directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (1

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

1 of the appeal\nis dismissed.\n24. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent of ₹40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould

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]

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, Capital Gains shall not be allowed

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, these two appeals are being disposed off through a single order. To begin with, we may briefly refer to the facts of the two cases— I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, these two appeals are being disposed off through a single order. To begin with, we may briefly refer to the facts of the two cases— I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023

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

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

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

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

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

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

73,457/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding that the assessee has claimed depreciation @40% of medical equipments which were not life saving medical equipments as specified u/s (xia) of Depreciation Table as per I.T. Rules

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order dated 26-09-2024 confirming\nthe penalty of Rs.11,73,586/- under section 271C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless\nAppeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14\nis completely arbitrary, unjustified

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing application of income of Rs.66,67,929/- which was made out of income of the trust for the instant year on the ground that said income represent Capital gains and hence cannot be utilised for the purpose of charitable activities. The Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that in terms of Section

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

73,82,684/-, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. Hence, basic conditions for disallowance under section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid decision in Appellant’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the facts were identical and it was held that the Assessing Officer had failed

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

73,82,684/-, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. Hence, basic conditions for disallowance under section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid decision in Appellant’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the facts were identical and it was held that the Assessing Officer had failed

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowance of deduction claimed by the\nassessee u/s 54F of the Act was confirmed.\n6.3 The assessee, regarding these grounds of appeal has submitted as\nunder:\n“The appellant had sold his old landed properties measuring 3.55 Acres in\nbetween June, 2015 and October, 2015 (para 7 of assessment order and page\n13 of P/B) for a total

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

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order dated 26-09-2024 confirming the penalty of Rs.11,73,586/- under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14 is completely arbitrary, unjustified

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act ,the AO observed that the assessee has received sponsorship fees from the sponsors for the purpose of holding meetings, conferences and seminars and in exchange they were allowed to display their banners and promote their business and brand names on its platforms and also for taking part in the deliberation of the said