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

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

disallowances amounting to Rs 276,01,94,417 under section 36(1 )(viia) as referred to in Ground No.1 as above in disregard of the decision of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank (78 ITD 103) and relying solely on the CBDT's Instruction No.17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008.” 3. The Assessee

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

7 of 22 capital in nature. This stand of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the sales tax remission granted by the West Bengal Government was not capital in nature since there was no stipulation in the Scheme that the amount of sales tax remission should be kept aside for purchase of plant

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified by directing the AO not to include the investment in companies which have not paid any dividend to the assessee company for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified by directing the AO not to include the investment in companies which have not paid any dividend to the assessee company for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without

RSP CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 53/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Rsp Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 6142 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 94(7) of the Act. The ld AO observed that the short term capital loss amounting to Rs 35,34,952/- claimed in the 5 RSP Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 return is to be reduced by the dividend income of Rs 9,44,243/- u/s 94(7) of the Act. This action

VINCENT COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T OSD TO CIT - III, KOLKATA

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

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

section 94(7) of the Act. Before the ld CITA, the assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 18,50,250/- u/s 94

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

7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, invited our attention to a copy of the employment agreement placed at page no. 9 to 21 of the paper book and pointed out the relevant clauses of the said agreement to show that the amount of salaries paid to the concerned two employees was to be partly paid

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

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

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the written submissions and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 5,350/- u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. AO further noted that the assessee had received dividend income

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

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified by directing the AO not to include the investment in companies which have not paid any dividend to the assessee company for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified by directing the AO not to include the investment in companies which have not paid any dividend to the assessee company for the purpose of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without

SUKHBIR SINGH DHUPIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2004-05

disallowance of the same invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. The taxable income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 1,34,70,990/- on 21.12.2006 after

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

disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause

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

disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company during the year. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause