M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution

ORGA SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

68,851 under section 234C and Rs.2,52,841/- under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1951. 9. That

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 3(1) C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9934G Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

68 and Rs. 11,78,155/- towards alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the additions so affirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is wholly bad and illegal and has not legal sanctity as well as facts and the additions so affirmed is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly

MANIKALA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The issues in Ground No. 4 by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) upholding the order of Assessing Officer, wherein the addition of Rs.33,35,000/-was made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

234D amounting to Rs.15,020/-. Rs. 1,23,915/- and Rs.1,013/- which are mechanically wrong and illegal. 7. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The issues in Ground No. 4 by the assessee is against the order

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

sections": [ "Sec. 147", "Sec. 148", "Sec. 10(38)", "Sec. 68", "Sec. 69C", "Sec. 250", "Sec. 234B", "Sec. 234D" ], "issues

MELCO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act by dismissing the appeal of appellant as unadmitted, whereas the appellant has not received any amount from so called M/s. Heaven Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the addition has been made presumptively without giving any opportunity to the appellant. Addition so I.T.A. No.: 1604/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Melco Sales Private Limited. made is grossly wrong

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

68 of PB, Vol-I) as set out by the learned Assessing Officer at page 4 of the impugned reassessment order. On perusal of tile monthly returns filed in Form No.F-1 for the months of March, 700B and April, 2008 in respect of the said Bhadrasai Mine, it is clear that the closing stock figure of Iron

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

68 of PB, Vol-I) as set out by the learned Assessing Officer at page 4 of the impugned reassessment order. On perusal of tile monthly returns filed in Form No.F-1 for the months of March, 700B and April, 2008 in respect of the said Bhadrasai Mine, it is clear that the closing stock figure of Iron

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.826,827&828/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2010-11)

68 of PB, Vol-I) as set out by the learned Assessing Officer at page 4 of the impugned reassessment order. On perusal of tile monthly returns filed in Form No.F-1 for the months of March, 700B and April, 2008 in respect of the said Bhadrasai Mine, it is clear that the closing stock figure of Iron

THE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 are disposed off

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Tinplate Company Of India Ltd..................................…………………………............Appellant 4, Bankshall Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aabct 0129 P] Dcit, Circle – 3 Kolkata....................……………………………………..............................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr (Jcit) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 1Kolkata Dated 25.01.2018 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1(A). That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 43B(F) Of The Act In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 2,69,68,179/- On Account Of Provision For Leave Encashment. 1(B). That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs. 2,69,68,179/- Disregarding A Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble High Court Of Jurisdiction. 2. That On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D Without Satisfying Pre-Condition For Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D. 3. That On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Charging Interest U/S 234D Of The Act.’’

section 43B(f) of the Act in disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,69,68,179/- on account of provision for leave encashment. 1(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,69,68,179/- disregarding a binding decision

WISE ENCLAVES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD 6(4),KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm& Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 323/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Wise Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan: Aaacw 7665 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.Cit

68,00,000/- which was later enhanced to Rs 3,69,01,543/- by the ld CITA . We note that the ld CIT invoked the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and found that the assessee company in its Balance Sheet has shown to have infused equity share capital of Rs 3,69,01,543/- at a premium

CARGO HANDLING CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 40(a)(ia) does not apply, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 6. For that the interest u/s. 234B & 234D charged mechanically are wrong & illegal. 7. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” Page

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

68,517/- by invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules without establishing any proximate cause between the expenditure incurred and earning of tax free income. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in considering the shares & securities held as ‘stock-in-trade’ to be ‘investment

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

68,517/- by invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules without establishing any proximate cause between the expenditure incurred and earning of tax free income. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in considering the shares & securities held as ‘stock-in-trade’ to be ‘investment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom