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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 17. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT (A) held that no industrial undertaking would come into existence within the meaning of the provisions contained in section 80IA of the Act by transferring the boiler or by installing new machinery for the purpose of generation

ITO, WD-33(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SUBHASH JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Issue In Hand Regarding Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Is Covered By The Consolidated Order Dt:18-06-2013 Of The Kolkata Tribunal, ‘B‘ Bench, Kolkata In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 1684/Kol/2011 & Ita No. 1685/Kol/2011 For The A.Y 2007-08. The Ld. Ar Also Submits That The 1 M/S. Simplex Subhash J.V

4. On the other hand, the ld.DR submits that the appellant Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta against such order dt:18-06-2013 passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The matter is still pending for adjudication. But he did not provide any document or evidence to show that

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

4 as modified is allowed. 26. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- “5. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) - VI, Kol has erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of the Appellant made under Section 40 (a)(ia) amounting to Rs.2,20,94

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A to Rs.34,750/-is upheld thereby dismissing Ground No. 4 of the revenue’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal. I.T.A. Nos. 956 & 737/KOL./2012 Assessment years 2005-2006 & I.T.A. Nos. 957 & 738/KOL/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 & I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 739/KOL/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-2008 & I.T.A

ITO, WD-31(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAMA DEVI DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1422/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2009-10 Income Tax Officer.............................…………………………………………………..Appellant 31(4), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 71 Shyama Devi Dalmia....................……………………………………………Respondent Dalmia Mansion, 5, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Agbpd 5911 E] Appearances By: Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 9, Kolkata 31.03.2016. 2. The First Issue Involved In This Case Relating To The Claim Of The Assessee For Loss Of Rs. 23,40,887/- From Mutual Fund Transactions Is Raised By The Revenue In Ground No 1 & 2 As Under: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Allowing Set Off Of Loss Of Rs. 23,40,887/- From Mutual Fund Transactions With The Profit Out Of Transactions In Shares, Securities Etc., Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Has Treated These Under The Head “Investments” & Did Not Audit Her Accounts As Prescribed In Section 44Ab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For Claiming The Transactions As Business Transactions. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Holding That Provisions Of Section 94(7)/94(8) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Not Applicable In This Case For Earning Exempt Income

4 are allowed in the hands of the assessee. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the mutual funds and shares were held by the assessee as investment and the activities to deal with the shares as well as mutual funds

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

94,000/- u/s 115JB of the Act on 24.09.2011. Statutory notices were issued and after considering the response of the assessee, the assessment was made at the total income at ₹712,83,74,510/- under the normal provision and book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act was computed at ₹725,48,54,507/- vide order

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

94,000/- u/s 115JB of the Act on 24.09.2011. Statutory notices were issued and after considering the response of the assessee, the assessment was made at the total income at ₹712,83,74,510/- under the normal provision and book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act was computed at ₹725,48,54,507/- vide order

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)

94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule 8D (2) (1+2+3) = Rs.6,18,02,973/- In view of the fact that the assessee had offered a suo moto disallowance

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)

94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule 8D (2) (1+2+3) = Rs.6,18,02,973/- In view of the fact that the assessee had offered a suo moto disallowance

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)

94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule 8D (2) (1+2+3) = Rs.6,18,02,973/- In view of the fact that the assessee had offered a suo moto disallowance

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)

94,81,000 =2,00,34,065/-......2 2) Add: 0.5% of average invest = 0.5% of Rs.812,10,87,625/- = 4,06,05,438/- .......3 Total Disallowance as per rule 8D (2) (1+2+3) = Rs.6,18,02,973/- In view of the fact that the assessee had offered a suo moto disallowance

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INTRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

disallowed by the AO during assessment. 3. The appellant craves leave to make any addition, alteration, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Relevant facts in respect of ground no. 1 as noted by the AO are as under: “The assessee filed its return of income on 28th November

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRACTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

disallowed by the AO during assessment. 3. The appellant craves leave to make any addition, alteration, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Relevant facts in respect of ground no. 1 as noted by the AO are as under: “The assessee filed its return of income on 28th November

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IA to the I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 20 of 34 extent of Rs.47,34,361/- and upholding the same, we dismiss Ground No. 4

BISWANATH HOSIERY MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

94,650/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the same by giving his finding as under: A.Y. 2017-18 Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd “6.2. Discussion and decision: 6.2.1. I have perused the assessment order as well as the submission

RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD., [EARLIER KNOWN AS RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

Section 94(7) and immediately after record date (within 3 days) the actual fund / sold 94(7) and immediately after record date (within 3 days) the actual fund / sold 94(7) and immediately after record date (within 3 days) the actual fund / sold enabling the assessee to a dividend of Rs. 5.19 crore and loss of Rs. 5.95 crore enabling

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

4 1997-98 (211,770) 66,230 (278,000) 66,230 5 1998-99 (393,286) 60,746 (454,032) 60,746 6 1999-00 (340,411) 64,801 (405,212) 64,801 7 2000-01 (514,294) 72,822 (587,116) 72,822 8 2001-02 27,909 94

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

4 1997-98 (211,770) 66,230 (278,000) 66,230 5 1998-99 (393,286) 60,746 (454,032) 60,746 6 1999-00 (340,411) 64,801 (405,212) 64,801 7 2000-01 (514,294) 72,822 (587,116) 72,822 8 2001-02 27,909 94