ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-. While framing the assessment the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80HHD and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹11,69,99,014/- and ₹11,73,61,242/- respectively qua which the assessee had filed audited report in form no.10CCAD and 10CCAC respectively. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cigarettes

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-. While framing the assessment the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80HHD and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹11,69,99,014/- and ₹11,73,61,242/- respectively qua which the assessee had filed audited report in form no.10CCAD and 10CCAC respectively. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cigarettes

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-. While framing the assessment the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80HHD and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹11,69,99,014/- and ₹11,73,61,242/- respectively qua which the assessee had filed audited report in form no.10CCAD and 10CCAC respectively. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cigarettes

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

220/-. While framing the assessment the assessee was\nallowed deduction u/s 80HHD and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(the Act) at ₹11,69,99,014/- and ₹11,73,61,242/- respectively qua\nwhich the assessee had filed audited report in form no.10CCAD and\n10CCAC respectively. The assessee is engaged in the business of\nmanufacturing and trading

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

condone the delay. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us affidavit stating reasons of delay, which are reproduced below: 2. The petitioner had offered the above mentioned amount of education cess for tax under the normal provisions of the Act considering the same as an expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. M/s ITC Infotech

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to hold that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D will not apply where no exempt income is received

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

condone the delay and admit the cross objection of the assessee for hearing. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. M/s Proficient Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1346/Kol/2016&C. O. No. 2016&C. O. No. 36/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: Assessment Year:2012-13 6. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for . At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

FARHAN AHMED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 4/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Farhan Ahmed,……………………………..………Appellant Tower 4, Flat 81, Sunflowers Garden, 74, Topsia Road, South Topsia, Kolkata-700046, West Bengal [Pan:Bmrpa2975G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-31(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071

section 249(2) of the Act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Due to that, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the assessee’s appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. For that education cess included in the liability for income tax is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short