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

disallowance is governed as per the provisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management services and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision enumerated in section 14A.\" 7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

M/S. SWAGAT TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA (FORMERLY D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

section 14A read with Rule 8D be restricted to Rs.56,043/- and balance disallowance may be deleted. 9. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowed an amount of Rs.5,92

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 is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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

disallowance is governed as per the\nprovisions detailed in section 14A of the Income Tax Act and in Rule 8D of\nthe Income Tax Rules. The charging of Capex charges for management\nservices and offering it to tax is correct, but has no relation with the provision\nenumerated in section 14A.\"\n7.5 The Ld. AR in this regard has submitted

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 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194 Taxman 203 (Bombay). Here the\nutilization of borrowed fund both in business and investment either directly\nfor new investment

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 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194 Taxman 203 (Bombay). Here the\nutilization of borrowed fund both in business and investment either directly\nfor new investment

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

92,000/- Add: Reserve for unexpired Risk Rs. 381,77,12,000/- Add: U/s 14A Rs. 65,88,50,000/- Add: Provision for Bad debt & Rs. 11,73,20,000/- 459,38,82,000/- Diminution in value of Investment Rs.609,88,74,000/- Less: Dividend income Rs. 2221890071/- Less: Interest income Rs. 247,18,836/- RS.224.66.08.907/J Adjusted Book Profit

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 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194 Taxman 203 (Bombay). Here the\nutilization of borrowed fund both in business and investment either directly\nfor new investment

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

section 14A of the I. T. Act,\n1961. In this regard the reference may be drawn from the decision of\nBombay High Court also in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs.\nDCIT, Range-10(2), Mumbai [2010] 194 Taxman 203 (Bombay). Here the\nutilization of borrowed fund both in business and investment either directly\nfor new investment

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AO observed that during the year assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 21,92

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AO observed that during the year assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 21,92

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AO observed that during the year assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 21,92

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act as well as deemed dividend under section 2 (22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AO observed that during the year assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 21,92

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance as computed by the AO in terms of the directions noted above is liable to be taken into 13 IT(SS)A Nos.17 & 20/Kol/2018 & Himatsingka Seide Ltd., AY 2008-09 account. Accordingly, ground no. 10 of the revenue is allowed. 12. In ground no. 4, assessee has contested on the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,88,57,264 on the contention