VIVEK TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURI, SURI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 90 of the ITA, 1961 nor the DTAA provides that Foreign Tax Credit shall be disallowed for non-compliance

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10 applies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance of expenditure debited in the profit and loss account as prepared under the Companies Act as neither any direct expenses nor any interest has been disallowed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only under clause (iii) of Rule

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90% of the actual addition made by the A.O on account of Repairs & Maintenance of Rs. 51,95,305/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90% of the actual addition made by the A.O on account of Repairs & Maintenance of Rs. 51,95,305/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of provision for Mine Closure Expenses. The Ld. AO held that the said provision was contingent in nature and was dependent on future occurrence of events. Further, the amount to be incurred also included sums on account of fine or penalty imposed by the Forest Department, hence was disallowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals

DCIT, CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Kolkata........................………..…..........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd...................................................…………...................Respondent 15N, Hudco Building Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087 [Pan : Aabct 8820 B] Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Syam, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri T.P. Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 16Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 8Th, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz :- This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 26/08/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’).

90,375/- made during the year under consideration which required disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee on 07/12/2012. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the following explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee in respect of the undisclosed closing stock of Rs.86

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

section 195, the expenditure of Rs 90,65,000 was to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

90 CCH 81 (Delhi) wherein it was held, investments made by an assessee in the business of holding investments had to be excluded while computing disallowance under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

90 CCH 81 (Delhi) wherein it was held, investments made by an assessee in the business of holding investments had to be excluded while computing disallowance under section

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

90 CCH 81 (Delhi) wherein it was held, investments made by an assessee in the business of holding investments had to be excluded while computing disallowance under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

90 CCH 81 (Delhi) wherein it was held, investments made by an assessee in the business of holding investments had to be excluded while computing disallowance under section

SRI AMIT KUMAR SEN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 51,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowable under section 40A(3) while a further sum of Rs.8,90,262/- was I.T.A. Nos. 402 & 631/KOL./2013 Assessment

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return