INDI STOCK PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

capital gain is quite fair and reasonable. I find merit in the argument of the ld. D.R. I accordingly confirm the disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- made under section 14A and dismiss Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. The issue involved in ground No. 3 relating to the charging of interest under section 234B and 234D

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital Gain(LTCG) of Rs. 60,53,155/-.\n8.3 During the appellant proceedings, the appellant had submitted the copy\nof bank statement reflecting payment made for purchase of shares, copy of\nletter from M/s. Greencast Financial Services Ltd for sub division in face\nvalue of shares, copy of share certificate of M/s. Marrigold Glass industries\nLtd duly issued

ACIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed

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

capital in nature as the subsidy was given for establishing the industry and not for carrying on of the business. In view of the aforesaid facts and purpose of the subsidy and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Hence the ground raised

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

gains of business or profession”, - ….. 13 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited (iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, (iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, (iv) the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

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

capital investment were not able to make profits in the initial few years of operation. The instant case of appellant squarely falls within the intention of legislature and therefore if in Assessment Year 2004-05 appellant has claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA for the first time then for all practical purposes it has expressed its option of choosing the period

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

234D and 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessee submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Assessee desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before

SRI MANAS SWAIKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 7(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, all grounds of appeal filed by the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 147 of the Act and made the addition on account of sale of agricultural land observing the following: “In the instant case, although onus is on assessee to substantiate its claim, it abjectly failed to produce any proof that the land in question was agriculture at the time of sale. Therefore, it cannot be said that a benefit which

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gain in any way by the said delay. I.T.A. No.: 344/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Arrowspace Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. 1.1. Considering the contents of this application, the delay is condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the Impugned assessment order dated 14-10-2016 passed

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

234D of the Act as th same is bad in law. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein-above either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The facts in brief as have been brought on record are that the assessee