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

disallowance under section 14A read\nwith Rule 8D is not required to be added to the Book Profit for the purpose\nof computation of income under section 115JB of the Act without\nappreciating that section 115JB clearly provides for including the\ndisallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D for the purpose of\ncomputation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance under section 14A read\nwith Rule 8D is not required to be added to the Book Profit for the purpose\nof computation of income under section 115JB of the Act without\nappreciating that section 115JB clearly provides for including the\ndisallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D for the purpose of\ncomputation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB

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

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

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-BD of the IT Rule 1962 relevant section

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

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

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-BD of the IT Rule 1962 relevant section

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

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-BD of the IT Rule 1962 relevant section

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

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-BD of the IT Rule 1962 relevant section

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule, there could not be any disallowance of the amount written off out of investments and, accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.4,22,26,000/- is deleted. Hence, Ground No.5 is allowed." We find that the revenue was not able to controvert the detailed findings of the Id CITA before us. Hence

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,61,886/- by disallowing the expenditure on account of purported interest expenditure is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. IV. FOR THAT the Learned CIT(A) arbitrarily held that the doctrine of real income applies in a limited segment of cases where the realty of the situation prevents the accrual of real income and such observation of the Learned

KAUSHAL KUMAR,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,194/- was disallowed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act as the same was deposited after due dates of the respective legislation. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has considered the facts of the case, the amendment to section

KAUSHAL KUMAR,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,194/- was disallowed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act as the same was deposited after due dates of the respective legislation. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has considered the facts of the case, the amendment to section