M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.” Respectfully relying on the aforesaid decision, we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this respect. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg

M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG) (P)LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.” Respectfully relying on the aforesaid decision, we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this respect. G. S. Atwal & Co. (Engg

SRI RAMKRISHNA SAMITY,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T.CIR - 2,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 15. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 15. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

reassessment proceedings that were A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5 The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

reassessment proceedings that were A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5 The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Circle10(1), V/S. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd (India) Ltd., 2?1, Russel Street, 5Th Floor, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 3166 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Agarwallaa, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 16.08.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By Revenue, Which Reads As Under:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That The Customers Of The Assessee Have Settled The Accounts Permanently After Deducting The Liquidated Damages & They Have Refused To Pay The Amount Forever? Was Not He Wrong In Holding That The Assessee Company Has Extinguished Its Right To Receive Money From Its Clients? 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Entertainment Expenses Despite The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of Its Claim? Has Not The Ao The Right To Enquire Into Purpose Of Expenditure & Does The Doctrine That The Businessman Is The Best Judge Of Business Expediency Affect The Rights And

43B(b) if the payment is made on or before the due date of filing the return of income. I have also taken note of the judicial citation in this regard as contained in the submission of the AR. I find that this matter is well settled by various courts including the Apex Court well after the judgment

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 3.3.2. We are aware that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D would sometimes result in absurdity

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 3.3.2. We are aware that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D would sometimes result in absurdity

DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1293/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Cir-5, -Vs.- M/S Kesoram Industries Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aabck 2326 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

reassessment proceedings but he had summarily rejected the same without pointing out any defect or shortcomings. Considering this, the disallowance of Rs. 2,60,00,852/- is not sustainable and the same is deleted”. 2.3. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment had been\ncompleted on 31.12.2017. It was the submission that the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court was on 12.10.2022. It was the submission that\nwhen the reopening was done the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nwas not available and thus it could be stated that there is a change of\nopinion which

WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,[FORMERLY THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) LTD.],KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 43B of the Act the expenditure claimed on interest incurred on the loan taken, could not have been allowed and, therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In such a scenario, we uphold the impugned order 3 West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd., AY: 2012-13 on the reason

D.C.I.T, CIR-2, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.1524/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04

section 43B, the same is allowable on payment basis. To support their argument, they relied upon various judgments of the Honble ITAT/High Courts. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the various judgments cited by the appellant, I find merit in their argument, therefore, the appeal on this ground is allowed.” 11. Aggrieved

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure 'in relation

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

43B of the Act, he submitted that the assessee company had claimed deduction in respect of excise duty, only on the amount which is paid/discharged before the due date of filing of the return of income. 11 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited 5.12. The ld. Sr. Advocate pointed out that consequent to an order passed