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/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit of an amount disallowed

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

96,948/-) and under Section 14A of the Act (Rs. 18,02,83,794/-), after giving benefit of an amount disallowed

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 Rule 8D of the Rules, ignoring the law that average value of investment needs to be calculated first. The ld. AR submits that ld. CIT (A) have directed the ld. AO to verify and recompute the disallowance considering all those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year and there is no infirmity in the said order

KAMALA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

disallowed the entire sum of Rs. 96,77,579/- on account of non deposit of tax deducted (TDS) on certain payment of expenses which ought to have been restricted to only 30% thereof as per the provision of section

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

96,77,083/- after making following disallowances/additions to the total income of the assessee: a) Disallowance of expenditure under section

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

96,77,083/- after making following disallowances/additions to the total income of the assessee: a) Disallowance of expenditure under section

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.

96,336/- and the assessee has already made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 18,34,921/- hence, we direct that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules should be restricted to the amount disallowed by the assessee on its own, being Rs. 18,34,921/-. In result, the assessee succeeds with respect to these

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.

96,336/- and the assessee has already made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 18,34,921/- hence, we direct that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules should be restricted to the amount disallowed by the assessee on its own, being Rs. 18,34,921/-. In result, the assessee succeeds with respect to these

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

96,223/- under the provisions of section 92CA of the Act and delete the addition/disallowance so made by the ld. AO in this respect. Accordingly, grounds 01 to 06 taken by the Department in this respect are dismissed. 12. Ground no. 07 is in respect of deletion of disallowance

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

96,223/- under the provisions of section 92CA of the Act and delete the addition/disallowance so made by the ld. AO in this respect. Accordingly, grounds 01 to 06 taken by the Department in this respect are dismissed. 12. Ground no. 07 is in respect of deletion of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBLIME AGRO LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

96,740/- u/s 80IE of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The AO after hearing the representative of the assessee completed the assessment, assessed income of Rs. 3,77,59,050/- by making additions/disallowance under various heads i.e. on nursery utilization, cess on green leaf, application of section

M/S. PANCHIRAM NAHATA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(3) of the Act on 09.02.2016 framed by ld. ACIT, Circle-44, Kolkata. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- (1)(a) That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.24,10,230/- simply on the ground that there is no scope for giving effect of notional income/expenditure

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. 4. The assessee replied to the show-cause notice vide written submissions dated 13.01.2023, 13.02.2023 & 13.03.2023, the copies of whichare filed at pages no. 30 to 76 of the paper book annexing several documents/evidences in support of its averments and contentions that the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

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

MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

96,817/-which were reproduced by the Id. AO at page\nno.2 of the assessment order. Therefore, in the current year also the\npresumption has to be drawn that interest free loans and advances\nwere given out of interest free funds available with the assessee. For\nthe sake of ready reference, extract the operative part of the decision