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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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

section 115JB of the Act to ₹4,19,505/-.\n18.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 11.5 of the order. In view of the\nfinding for AY 2012-13, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.\n19. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate

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

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 be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n24.1 This issue has been decided in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY\n2012-13 in the preceding para no. 7.5 of the order

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

disallowance made by the assessee on his own account will be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of section 14A of the Act. For reference, an illuminating portion from the Maxopp case (supra) needs to be extracted: “In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

disallowance made by the assessee on his own account will be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of section 14A of the Act. For reference, an illuminating portion from the Maxopp case (supra) needs to be extracted: “In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A of the\nAct read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to ₹1,83,51,518/-\nSince, the assessee had already disallowed ₹37,56,860/- as\nexpenditure incurred to earn exempt income, hence the sum of\n₹1,45,94,658/- [₹1,83,51,518 - ₹37,56,860] was disallowed and added\nback to the total

BARODA AGENTS & TRADING CO.(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 437/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Baroda Agents & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Birla Building Vs Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata 4Th Floor 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacb1472G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present 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. 08/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Four Grounds Of Appeal, But They All Relate To The Addition Made Under Section 14A Of The Act At Rs.23,46,339/-. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Agency Business, Trading, Finance & Investment Activities. Nil Income Declared In The Return Filed On 29/09/2009. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. So Far As The Issue Under Consideration Before Us Is Concerned, We Notice That The Assessee Has Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.1,25,17,598/-. The Assessee Has 2

87,405/- made by the assessee itself. Accordingly, ground taken in this respect is allowed.” 7. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of this bench of the Tribunal (supra), the disallowance under section

AKHIL BHARATVARSHIYA CH KSH MAHASABHA,KOLKATA vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 380/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Akhil Bharatvarshiya Ch Ksh Mahasabha,..Appellant C/O. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, West Bengal [Pan:Aaaaa8373R] -Vs.- Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc),……...Respondent Bengaluru, Income Tax Department, Post Box No. 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bengaluru-560100 Appearances By: Shri Deep Agrawal, A.R. & Shri Subhankar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

disallowing exemptions under sections 11 & 12 amounting to Rs.25,13,870/- and raising a consequential demand of Rs.7,87,530/-. The reason

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), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

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), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

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), failing to appreciate that the disallowance under the IRDA/Insurance Act regulations related only to the allocation of expenses and had not rendered the expenditure itself illegal or unlawful for the purpose of disallowance under the Income-tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before

M/S. PANCHIRAM NAHATA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(3) of the Act on 09.02.2016 framed by ld. ACIT, Circle-44, Kolkata. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- (1)(a) That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.24,10,230/- simply on the ground that there is no scope for giving effect of notional income/expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 010. The issue raised in ground no.1 of appeal is against the deletion of addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 010. The issue raised in ground no.1 of appeal is against the deletion of addition

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed. Hence, such failure rendered the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2023 erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The ld. PCIT has gone through the provisions of the Act and the arguments and the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Shree