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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

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

1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

275 dt. 29.01.1997 which stated that no demand visualized u/s 201(1) of the Act should be enforced after the tax depositor satisfied the Officer-in-Charge of the TDS that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. It further clarified that it would not alter the liability to charge interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act till

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that to claim immunity under Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271 of the Act the assessee had to satisfy the following three conditions : (i) Such income has been disclosed in a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that to claim immunity under Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271 of the Act the assessee had to satisfy the following three conditions : (i) Such income has been disclosed in a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS for the Assessment Year 2008-09. VIII. FOR that the assessee denies liability to pay tax computed and interest under Section 234(b) charged in the assessment.” ITA No.1193-1198/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09 Panchi Bibi Wakf Estate v. DDIT(E)-II, Kol. Page 4 First we take up ground No. 1 & 2, the common raised by assessee

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS (-) 1,29,449 Total 25,23,977 ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya v. ACIT, Cir-55, Kol. Page 5 Advance tax paid (-) 25,000 Total 24,98,977 Less paid u/s. 140A (-) 6,600 Total 24,92,377 Add 234B 7,50,419 Add 234C 123 Total Tax payable 30,23,135” In this appeal challenge

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ONPROCESS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

275/- Total : Rs.2,96,05,045/- From the foregoing details as were filed before the AO, he noted that such fees were paid without deduction of tax u/s. 195 of the Act and, therefore, he show caused the assessee as to why expenditure should not be disallowed in terms of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act. It was submitted

ON PROCESS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

275/- Total : Rs.2,96,05,045/- From the foregoing details as were filed before the AO, he noted that such fees were paid without deduction of tax u/s. 195 of the Act and, therefore, he show caused the assessee as to why expenditure should not be disallowed in terms of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act. It was submitted

M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-59(4) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

275 dated 29.01.1997 that the interest would be chargeable even if the deductee had nil income or was claiming a loss as the charging of interest under this section is mandatory and is compensatory in nature. The interest charged upon the assessee u/s.201(IA) was thus upheld. 10. Before us the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

275(SC) the Supreme court held that Section 2(22) deals with various types of cases and creates a fiction by which certain receipts or parts thereof are treated as dividend for the purpose of levy of Income-tax . In CIT v. Martin Burn Ltd., (1982)136 ITR 805(cal) the Calcutta High court held that Under section