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

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

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

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

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

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

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

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

34 “The matter has been examined by the Board. It is abundantly clear from sub- section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen ( or twenty) years

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34), this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34), this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

10% u/s. 1941 (rental in nature) 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that TDS has to be deducted under the specific provision. The provisions under residuary section can be invoked only if there is no specific section under the I.T.Act. TDS on payment of rent will attract TDS only

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

TDS certificate is essential. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 6. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a) (i) of the Act:— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

MR KRISHAN KUMAR SOMANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year: 2007-08

10-11-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 09-12-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 18.01.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-47(1), Kolkata

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEY'S MEDICAL (U.P.) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06

section 40(a)(ia) was invoked by the AO to disallow these expenditures made in the garb of the term 'reimbursement' to avail the dual 15 Dey’s Medical (UP) Pvt. ltd. AY 2005-06 advantage of reducing profit and TDS burden on the payees. It was prayed that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS provisions are not applicable on the same. I.T.A. No.2567/Kol/2019 C.O. 12/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s TM International Logistics Ltd., Kolkata 12. It was brought to our notice that the assessee (in short ‘TMILL) had entered into an agreement with Tata Steel Limited (‘TSL’) for handling tonnages for respective divisions of the TSL at different ports. In accordance with

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held

TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

TDS under section 194J of the Act. Ground 8.5: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/CIT have erred in routinely applying section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without satisfaction of all the requirements stipulated under second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Appellant has not been held