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

95,305/-.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on\naccount of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

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

95,305/-.\n3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on\naccount of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section

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

Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A\nr.w.r 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962\n: Rs. 95,85,590/-\nb) Disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We notice that the impugned disallowance consists of two amounts, one is the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and other is expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act. So far as the interest disallowance is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

DCIT,CC-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. ARYAN MINING AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED, HIDE LANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Aryan Mining & Trading Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Corporation Limited, 110, Shantipally, 4 Th Floor, P-1, Hide Lane, Johar Building, Vs. Pin-700073, West Bengal Pin-700073, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadca7247B Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsian, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 14A of the I TAct, 1961 and made disallowance of Rs. 95,77,250/-. We note that Coordinate Bench

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

Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 : Rs. 95,85,590/- b) Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act : Rs. 2,13,270/- c) Addition

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

Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 : Rs. 95,85,590/- b) Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act : Rs. 2,13,270/- c) Addition

ARTLINE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

95,83,000/- which had the potential to yield exempt income in the shape of dividends. Admittedly, during the year under consideration no exempt income was received by this assessee but the ld. AO relied on CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 to apply the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') read

TECHNO ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED. ,NOIDA vs. A.O, C.C-2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance under clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules...." 17. Even the Madras and Calcutta High Courts have taken similar views. 18. The Madras High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Shriram Ownership Trust, 2020 (12) TMI 736-Madras High Court has held as under:- "2.The following substantial questions of law have been framed

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

PUNCHA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ACIT, WARD 3(1), , BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 23.04.2021 by\nassessing the total income of ₹95,82,765/- after making disallowances

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of deduction under section 80P has itself been deleted in appeal. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is directed to delete the aggregate penalty of Rs. 1,01,61,614/- levied under section 270A, on these accounts. These grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. In Ground No. (4), the appellant has sought leave to add, substitute, modify, delete

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team has pointed out certain objections during the course of audit before the ld. Assessing Officer and then ld. Assessing Officer proposed these issues to the ld. PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We have also examined the audit objections raised by the audit

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

95,28,1670/-. Subsequently the case was reopened under section 147 after following the prescribed procedure under the Act. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.2022; in response to which the assessee filed the return of income showing total income of ITA No.: 1161/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhargab Engineering Works