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 and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IA to the extent of Rs.47,34,361/-. 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 19 of 34 26. In the return

M/S. B.S. ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

95,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) on account of commission for the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source as required under section 194H. 3. The 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)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

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)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

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)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

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)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

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

95,305/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

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

95,305/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.1,24,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 9. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company had earned dividend income of Rs.2,95

M/S INTER STATE OIL CARRIER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 35D for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “The assessee has claimed share issue expenses of Rs.32,24,172/- as amortisation u/s 35D. It is pertinent to note that the company is already more than ten years old and amortisation of expenses u/s 35D is allowed for preliminary expenses

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

95,042/-. This amount should have been disallowed by the AO in the assessment order. As the assessing officer omitted to make this disallowance, the assessment order has been rendered erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. I have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the assessment order dated 02.06.2010 u/s 263 with the direction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BANWARILALL PASARI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

95,988/-, Rs. 75,41,408/- and Rs. 1,75,54,609/- respectively. The assessee had also earned dividend income of Rs. 67,00,090/- which was claimed to be exempt from tax. In computation of total income, a disallowance of Rs. 5,03,714/- was offered by the assessee on account of indirect expenses incurred in relation

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BANWARILALL PASARI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2114 & 2115/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Acit Cir 34..............................………………………...........................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 107. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari………………………………………………...............................Respondent 16, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aacfb 7611 A] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2018 Order

95,988/-, Rs. 75,41,408/- and Rs. 1,75,54,609/- respectively. The assessee had also earned dividend income of Rs. 67,00,090/- which was claimed to be exempt from tax. In computation of total income, a disallowance of Rs. 5,03,714/- was offered by the assessee on account of indirect expenses incurred in relation

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance under section 14A to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee's appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 15. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the relevant year are similar to that of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue