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

34 of the said judgment suggest that 43A does not apply\non prepayment but on actual payment after the amendment. The assessee\nhas undergone hedging and loss for the entire future period for which the\npayment is still to be made has been debited as provision and the same is\nheld to be not allowable relying Instruction No.3/2010 (supra). Hence

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

10. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to declare that the assessee is only the custodian of the funds and has got no control in any manner whatsoever, over the funds collected by it and interest income thereon. 11. “Whether on the facts

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

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

34), this dividend income is not to be\nincluded in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the\napplicability of section 14A which is based on the theory of apportionment\nof expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that\nextent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in\nacquiring 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

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

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

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

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

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