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

7,50,00,000/- on account of notional lease rent both under the normal\nprovisions and while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act.\n2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals)\nerred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adding

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

7,50,00,000/- on account of notional lease rent both under the\nnormal provisions and while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act.\n2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned\nCIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in\nadding

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

7\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15\nM/s. Coal India Ltd.\n6. Whether expenditure relatable to investment by way of inter-corporate\ndeposits will attract disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961?\n7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

7\nITA Nos.: 466, 622, 467, 623/KOL/2018 &\n1406, 1696, 1407, 1697/KOL/2019\nAYs: 2011-12 to 2014-15\nM/s. Coal India Ltd.\n6. Whether expenditure relatable to investment by way of inter-corporate\ndeposits will attract disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961?\n7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

94,75,270/-. The return was selected for\nscrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the\nassessee. In respect of the international transactions entered during the\n assessment year, a reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe

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

94,75,270/-. The return was selected for\nscrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the\nassessee. In respect of the international transactions entered during the\n assessment year, a reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe

SUKUMAR SOLVENT PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sukumar Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan Gopalpur, Sagrai, Purba Vs. Burdwan-713424. Pan: Aajcs 2085 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - Burdwan Dated 11.03.2019 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Relevant To Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Estimation & Confirmation Of Higher G.P. On Unaccounted Sales By The Appellate Authority Is Baseless & On Surmise Since Appellant Actual Audited G.P. Rate Is Lower.

94,245/- and partly allowed ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned addition made by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside in terms of our observation made above. 7. Ground no. 6 raised by the assessee regarding the confirmation of TDS addition on freight charges as the assessee being aggrieved by the order

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

94,75,270/-. The return was selected for\nscrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the\nassessee. In respect of the international transactions entered during the\n assessment year, a reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe

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

94,75,270/-. The return was selected for\nscrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the\nassessee. In respect of the international transactions entered during the\n assessment year, a reference was made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs\n2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 are allowed

Section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation\nwe take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective\neffect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the\n assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion\narrived at by the learned Tribunal.\n7.\nWe have considered

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A of the\nAct read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to ₹1,83,51,518/-\nSince, the assessee had already disallowed ₹37,56,860/- as\nexpenditure incurred to earn exempt income, hence the sum of\n₹1,45,94,658/- [₹1,83,51,518 - ₹37,56,860] was disallowed and added\nback to the total

M/S. CHECONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

94(7) of the Act and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are two distinct issues. Accordingly the AO computed disallowance of Rs. 19,93,513/- by taking 1% of the opening and closing balance in March, 2017 as stated in para 4.8 of the assessment order and added the same to the income of the assessee

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 7. For that the Assessing Officer has erred

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 7. For that the Assessing Officer has erred

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation we take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.” 7. We have considered the submissions

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation we take effect from 01.04.22 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and, therefore, on facts the amendment cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration. We find no error in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.” 7. We have considered the submissions

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee