AMBO EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN, CIR-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 10A of the Act is a special incentive introduced by the legislature in order to promote exports and therefore, the same has to be construed liberally. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) - “ A provision in a taxing statute granting

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

section 10A(2)(ii).” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Before us Ld. DR submitted that the contention of the assessee is that the directors of both the companies are different but shareholders of both the companies i.e., Asxys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. as well as VCIL are same

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

TDS. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A) in this regard: “49. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has produced necessary challans in respect of Rs.96,38,368/-. The appellant has further submitted - at it could not ,produce the balance challans amounting

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

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

10A and 10AA of the Act, which specifically provide for transition of deduction to an eligible undertaking from secion10A to 10AA and specifically provides that Assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s.10A for the balance unexpired years. Now, had the intention of the legislature been to provide that even in case of undertaking who have been allowed deduction under

BISHISTA BAGCHI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.540/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bishista Bagchi..........................………………............................…….…………….....Appellant 3C, Santosh Garden, 8, Ekdalia Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata. [Pan:Ayapb6940J] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru………….…..…...............……........……...…..……………Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :January 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS was effected u/s. 194DA of the Act on the above payment of the maturity proceeds. The moot question here is, whether an insurance policy is a capital asset or not.It is observed that the insurance policy taken by the appellant is in the nature of apension policy wherein a sum assured is given at the end of the maturity

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

10A of the Income Tax Act. iii. Similar decision in: the case of C. I. T Vs. Rane (Madras) Limited (Chennai). And then in the original assessment order passed on 31.12.2008 he has computed the gross total income at Rs.4,99,77,876/- and gave deduction under Chapter VI of Sec. 80IA of the Act. “Gross total income

LIFE SAVINGS SOCIETY OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2365/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 2366/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

10A on 26.03.2018 and the Trust was granted registration by the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata vide order dated 31.08.2018. The assessee-Trust filed its returns of income for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 showing total income at ‘NIL’. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued showing a demand of Rs.4

LIFE SAVING SOCIETY OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2365/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & I.T.A. No. 2366/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

10A on 26.03.2018 and the Trust was granted registration by the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata vide order dated 31.08.2018. The assessee-Trust filed its returns of income for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 showing total income at ‘NIL’. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued showing a demand of Rs.4

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.1880,1881&1882/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................….................……...…..…Appellant Vs. M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd.........................................…..…..Respondent 2, Rainey Park, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaace5778N] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 22.06.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 – The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

sections 92A to 92F of the Act and rules. 10A to 10E of the Rules and also maintained necessary information and documentation in support thereof. However from the SCN issued by the Ld. TPO as well as his impugned order, I find that no ground whatsoever has been set out for rejecting the TP analysis performed by the appellant. Such