ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital goods. The assessee has furnished the Registration under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India vide approval No. STPIM/PCMG/PSE/02/199-7492 dated 17.2.2003 registering the assessee as an 100% EOU. The copy of the said certificate is enclosed at pages 105 to 109 of the paper book alongwith the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee company with STPI

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

capital goods. The assessee has furnished the Registration under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India vide approval No. STPIM/PCMG/PSE/02/199-7492 dated 17.2.2003 registering the assessee as an 100% EOU. The copy of the said certificate is enclosed at pages 105 to 109 of the paper book alongwith the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee company with STPI

ITO, WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

capital goods. The assessee has furnished the Registration under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India vide approval No. STPIM/PCMG/PSE/02/199-7492 dated 17.2.2003 registering the assessee as an 100% EOU. The copy of the said certificate is enclosed at pages 105 to 109 of the paper book alongwith the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee company with STPI

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case to adjudicate all the transfer pricing issues of the Revenue as well as assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case to adjudicate all the transfer pricing issues of the Revenue as well as assessee

LIMTEX INFOTECH LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1368/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Limtex Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-7(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabcl 0088 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital goods. The assessee has furnished the Registration under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India vide approval No. STPIM/PCMG/PSE/02/199-7492 dated 17.2.2003 registering the assessee as an 100% EOU. The copy of the said certificate is enclosed at pages 105 to 109 of the paper book alongwith the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee company with STPI

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:

Gain on the proceeds received by her and after taking benefit of indexation for the premiums paid in the F.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08, declared a long term loss of Rs.3,26,569/- in the return of income. The CPC while processing the return, disallowed the same and made an addition of Rs. 18,14,072/- under the head

ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIPUL GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

capital goods. The assessee has furnished the Registration under the Software Technology Park Scheme of India vide approval No. STPIM/PCMG/PSE/02/199-7492 dated 17.2.2003 registering the assessee as an 100% EOU. The copy of the said certificate is enclosed at pages 105 to 109 of the paper book alongwith the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee company with STPI

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

10A of the paper book is reproduced below. “the calculation of capital gains is enclosed.” We also note that the assessee has furnished the details of the investment in the form of some chart as evident from the order sheet entry of the AO relating to assessment proceedings under section

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

10A of the Central Excise Rules on 6th August, 1977. 24. An attempt was made in General Finance Company & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (2002) 7 SCC 1 to refer these two judgments to a larger bench on the point that an omission would not amount to a repeal for the purpose of Section

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

10A of the Central Excise Rules on 6th August, 1977. 24. An attempt was made in General Finance Company & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (2002) 7 SCC 1 to refer these two judgments to a larger bench on the point that an omission would not amount to a repeal for the purpose of Section

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section (1) as if— (a) for the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2001", the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2006" had been substituted; (b) for the word "undertaking", the words "undertaking, being the Unit" had been substituted. (9) The provisions of sub-section

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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen 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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen 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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen 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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen 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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen 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

gains for further assessment years.” The clause 2 of section 80IA states that the Appellant may at his option claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning the year in which the undertaking starts providing telecommunication services i.e. the assessee has an option to claim for any ten consecutive year out of fifteen years