ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

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

68,139 being provision for intangible asset in computing “Book Profit” under section 115JB.” 4. First of all, Ld. AR of assessee has not pressed for adjudcitation ground No. 7, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The first and second ground relate to the common issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68,95,685/- was claimed. Assessment proceedings were completed wherein ld.A.O made disallowance of Rs. 4,22,409/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESI which was deposited to the Govt. Account beyond the prescribed due date. Further, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was made of Rs. 1

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

IV of I.T. Act. The claim of write off of investments is therefore, treated as a loss of capital and thus outside the ambit of sec. 36(1(vii)”. 20. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of its claim for deduction on account of diminution in the value of shares was challenged by the assessee

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

68,963/- which is related to Ground No. 3 as on\nthe change of status, the Ld. AO was of the view that the dividend of\n₹59,72,961/- declared @ 10% to the shareholders from 11.09.2021 was\nliable to be subjected to dividend distribution tax which was levied and\nthe Ld. AO's view has been confirmed

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

68. One must not lose sight of the fact that it is the Revenue which has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person.” We note that it was an unfounded assumption on the part of the learned AO that since the notice u/s 133(6) remained unserved, the parties are non-existent and as such the payment made

ACIT , CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Disallowance 1. Contribution to 36(1)(iv) 2,08,86,57,648 7,10,68

ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT , KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Disallowance 1. Contribution to 36(1)(iv) 2,08,86,57,648 7,10,68

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Disallowance 1. Contribution to 36(1)(iv) 2,08,86,57,648 7,10,68

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Disallowance 1. Contribution to 36(1)(iv) 2,08,86,57,648 7,10,68

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 143(3) of the Act wherein the status of the assessee is taken as company without any basis. Change of status is not permissible under the law unless and until a cogent reasoned order is passed on the same. Here, the assessee's change of status from a cooperative society to company is without any basis. Hence

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

68,963/- which is related to Ground No. 3 as on\nthe change of status, the Ld. AO was of the view that the dividend of\n₹59,72,961/- declared @ 10% to the shareholders from 11.09.2021 was\nliable to be subjected to dividend distribution tax which was levied and\nthe Ld. AO's view has been confirmed

M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

36,44,300/- shown as Other payables (note 5-other current liabilities of the audited accounts) which is remained unexplained is added back u/s. 68.” 4. Aggrieved by the above addition saddled by AO u/s. 68 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the same. Aggrieved, the assessee

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

36) share applicants. In other words, when the Ld. CIT(A) perused the documents kept in the assessment folder and still if he felt that he was not satisfied with the replies filed by the share applicant companies, then he could have insisted on the personal attendance of the Directors of the share applicant companies by exercising his plenary powers

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

36(1)(v) of the Act cannot be claimed. Accordingly, deduction on account of contribution to Gratuity fund amounting to Rs.4,68,092/- claimed by the assessee was disallowed. M/s Mrinalini Biri Manufacturing Co Assessment Year:2012-13 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

FIZAAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

36 of paper book. From a perusal of page 29 of the paper book it is discerned that this is the 32nd Annual Report i.e. for AY 2012-13, which is seen placed from pages 29 to 59 of the paper book, thus the fact of incorporation of this company 32 years back is corroborated. The Ld. AR drew

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68[such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of seven and one-half per cent]. (2)------------ Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown

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

68[such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of seven and one-half per cent]. (2)------------ Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown