DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC which was concluded after considering the ratio judgment in the case of Alom Extrustion Ltd. iii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC which was concluded after considering the ratio judgment in the case of Alom Extrustion Ltd. iii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

I.T.O WD - 6(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AXIX OVERSEAS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

928/- a sum of ₹24,38,531/- was disallowed on account of prior period item. Ld. AR before us fairly conceded and agreed not to agitate the disallowance of ₹24,48,531/- on account of prior period expense. Out of total disallowance of interest for ₹1,71,36,916/- has allowed the interest of ₹58,16,270/- as detailed under

AXIX OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

928/- a sum of ₹24,38,531/- was disallowed on account of prior period item. Ld. AR before us fairly conceded and agreed not to agitate the disallowance of ₹24,48,531/- on account of prior period expense. Out of total disallowance of interest for ₹1,71,36,916/- has allowed the interest of ₹58,16,270/- as detailed under

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MACKINTOSH BURN LTD,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowed the said claim. The Hon'ble ITAT held that, “A plain reading of section 80AC makes it clear that from the assessment year 2006-07, deduction claimed under section 80IA/80-IB/80-IC/80-ID/80-IE shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a return on or before due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. Nowhere in the section

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MICROSEC FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (on Ground No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Dcit, Circle-12, Vs. M/S Microsec Financial P-7, Chowringhee Square, Services Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Shivam Chambers, 53, Kolkata-69 Sayed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata-700019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7147 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.212/Xii/12/11-12, Dated 23.09.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 16.11.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 21.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,46,66,807/- & Revised Return Of Income On 19.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,98,36,700/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) By Making Various Disallowances.

928/- expenditure attributable for earning exempted income." 3. "That in the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance amount to Rs. 1,70,127/- by bringing down the average value of investment which is not in accordance with Sec. 14A read with Rule BD." 4. "That on the facts and in the circumstances

TUG INDOFIN PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(2),, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

section Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ignoring the fact that the assessee had suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.15,44,928

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

928 of the Act. 1.2. disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder services and thus a guarantee fee is not warranted. 1.3. making an ad-hoc adjustment of 200 basis points on the outstanding

SRI VINAYAK FINCON PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

928/- and Rs.57,028/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Both these disallowances have been made under section

M/S. SRI VINAYAK FINCON PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

928/- and Rs.57,028/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Both these disallowances have been made under section

TEESTA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2024/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 1993-94

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 15.03.1996 for the Assessment Year 1993-94. 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.39,29,928

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. A.R also submitted that the provisions relating to taxability of income accruing or arising through or from any business connection in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India are contained section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Explanation 1 to Section

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. A.R also submitted that the provisions relating to taxability of income accruing or arising through or from any business connection in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India are contained section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Explanation 1 to Section

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. A.R also submitted that the provisions relating to taxability of income accruing or arising through or from any business connection in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India are contained section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Explanation 1 to Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. A.R also submitted that the provisions relating to taxability of income accruing or arising through or from any business connection in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India are contained section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Explanation 1 to Section

M/S APEEJAY TEA LIMITED(MARGED WITH APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

928/- charges D. Discount on Rs. 14,000/- warehousing charges E. Tea Board subsidy Rs. l,14,975/- F. Scrap sale Rs. 41,548/- G. Storm Damage Rs. l,48,693 /- claim H. Received from IOL Rs . 2,34,000/ - (Indian Oil Limited) Realised from Auto Rs. 81,142/- Entines J. Bazar Rent Rs. 54,450/- K. Interest

M/S RYDAK SYNDICATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 301-302 & 304-305/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 1993-94,2001-02,2011-12 &2012-13 M/S Rydak Syndicate Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Spl.Rg-2, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2656 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 43B of the Act is incorrect in the instant case. There is no dispute that the assessee had made provision based on rational workings towards provision for leave encashment . Hence the assessee would be entitled for deduction on provision basis by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case