M/S MERINO PANEL PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Act read with Section 80G

M/S MERINO INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Act read with Section 80G

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Srei Equipment Finance Commissioner Of Income-Tax Limited (Appeals), 86C, Vishwakarma, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs3431L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Miss Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

disallowed the donation Srei Equiptment Finance Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 under section 80G of the Act while computing the income of the assessee. 4.1. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act of ₹2

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).

disallowed and added back the aforesaid expenditure in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act, while computing the taxable business income. However, as the sum contributed qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G

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

disallowance as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

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

disallowance as computed under subsection (2) & (3) for the purpose of Section 14A can be applied while making adjustment under clause (f) of Section 115JB. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions: Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. [G.A. No. 1501 of 2014 dated

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR donations to registered charitable trusts is unjustified as nowhere do the provisions of section 80G provide that the sums paid to charitable trusts have to be 'voluntary' in nature so as to become eligible for deduction under the said provision. It is further submitted that, it was the assessee

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

M/S TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, DELHI AND KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Tdk India Private Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata Wbidc Growth Centre, Kulia Aayakar Bhawan, P-7 Kanchrapara Road, Po Ns Chowringhee Square, Sanatorium,Kalyani, Nadia, Vs. 6Th Floor, Roomno.18, Kolkata-741251, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci6950Q Assessee By : Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2025

disallowance of Donation made as a part of CSR Activity. 5.1. During the previous year under consideration, the appellant made following donations eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act: Name of Amount of donation Eligible amount u/s Reference of Organization (INR) 80G @ 50% (INR) paperbook Ekakanya 2

L & T FINANCE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

80G under Chapter VIA in respect of donations which also qualifies as CSR expenditure and expressly disallowed by the appellant under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2

L & T FINANCE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

80G under Chapter VIA in respect of donations which also qualifies as CSR expenditure and expressly disallowed by the appellant under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2

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

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard