D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1055& C.O. No.73/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Universal Cables Ltd. 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3547P (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Respondent/ Cross-Objector)

section 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) proportionate interest and administrative expenses disallowances of Rs.153.39 lacs and Rs.25.37 lacs; respectively in assessment dated 27.02.2015. The CIT(A) had decided this issue in assessee’s favour as under: “8. Ground No.7 & 8: Disallowance u/s 14A: 8.1 The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.1,78,76,000/- as expenditure incurred

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 15,000/- u/s 80D in respect of which the Ld. CIT(A) in his order No. 172 dated 14.02.2014 in quantum appeal directed the AO to verify and allow. The orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) holding the said sum of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- as undisclosed concealed income on which

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

disallowance of Rs.9951/- u/s 80D of the Act. This issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant evidences that may be furnished by the assessee in support of his claim and if the claim of the assessee is found correct, then the Assessing Officer to allow the claim accordingly. Ground No.3 – Vide Ground

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

disallowance of Rs.9951/- u/s 80D of the Act. This issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the relevant evidences that may be furnished by the assessee in support of his claim and if the claim of the assessee is found correct, then the Assessing Officer to allow the claim accordingly. Ground No.3 – Vide Ground

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has paid LIC premium, the proofs whereof are available at pages 19 to 25 of paper book, along with proofs of payment to National Insurance Company of Rs.12,426/- claimed under section 80D

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has paid LIC premium, the proofs whereof are available at pages 19 to 25 of paper book, along with proofs of payment to National Insurance Company of Rs.12,426/- claimed under section 80D

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has paid LIC premium, the proofs whereof are available at pages 19 to 25 of paper book, along with proofs of payment to National Insurance Company of Rs.12,426/- claimed under section 80D

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

disallowed by the AO and upheld by the ld CIT(A). 13. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has paid LIC premium, the proofs whereof are available at pages 19 to 25 of paper book, along with proofs of payment to National Insurance Company of Rs.12,426/- claimed under section 80D

D.C.I.T, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI CHANDRA KUMAR RATHI, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmedi.T.A No. 2431/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144 of the Act and he went ahead with the Best Judgment Assessment. So, the difference of the amount of Rs. 65,71,645/- was deemed to be the unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved by the decision