ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting – In certain cases – Assessment year 2001-02 – Whether in respect of excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability would get crystallized on date of clearance of goods and not on date of manufacture and, therefore, till date of clearance of excisable goods assessee cannot be said

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting – In certain cases – Assessment year 2001-02 – Whether in respect of excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability would get crystallized on date of clearance of goods and not on date of manufacture and, therefore, till date of clearance of excisable goods assessee cannot be said

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting – In certain cases – Assessment year 2001-02 – Whether in respect of excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability would get crystallized on date of clearance of goods and not on date of manufacture and, therefore, till date of clearance of excisable goods assessee cannot be said

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting – In certain cases – Assessment year 2001-02 – Whether in respect of excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability would get crystallized on date of clearance of goods and not on date of manufacture and, therefore, till date of clearance of excisable goods assessee cannot be said

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS officer to look into the violations, if any, on the same and hence on that ground also, no disallowance of expenditure could be appreciated. We find that the Learned AO had made the entire addition based on surmises and conjectures and made on adhoc basis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation

D,C,I.T, CIR-I, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1515/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle – 1, Kolkata...................................………………………….................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd.....................……………………………….............Respondent 41, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan: Aaecs 0445 G] Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Sr. Dr (Jcit) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 18, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 22, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 21.02.2013. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Fixed On 18.03.2019, None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of The Fact That The Notice Of The Said Hearing Was Sent To The Assessee By Rpad. There Was A Similar Non- Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee Even On The Earlier Occasions When The Appeal Was Fixed Or Hearing On 12.12.2017, 03.042018, 08.11.2018, 10.01.2019 & 04.02.2019. This Appeal Of The Revenue Is, Therefore, Being Disposed Of Ex-Parte Qua The Respondent Assessee After Hearing The Arguments Of The Learned Dr & Perusing The Relevant Material Available On Record.

TDS were not ascertainable and a disallowance of Rs. 1,11,68,443/- was made by him observing that the labour charges to that extent were unascertainable and the same were claimed by the assessee on provisional basis. 9. The disallowance made by the AO out of labour charges was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before