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]

section 92 of the Act. Therefore, if 38 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 the 10A and 10B unit sales goods/services to its AE, the arm`s length price should be computed. However, we note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the ld TPO has already included the sale of 10A & 10B units

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]

section 92 of the Act. Therefore, if 38 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 the 10A and 10B unit sales goods/services to its AE, the arm`s length price should be computed. However, we note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the ld TPO has already included the sale of 10A & 10B units

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

section 10A of the Act was deduction provision and he accordingly computed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act as follows :- “ Since no divisible income is assessed after set off of brought forward business loss, brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Unicorn Industries

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

M/S. SYNERGY RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-3, KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2004/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Synergy Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. ..............................………………Appellant C/O. Arsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 22, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaufs3471M] J.C.I.T., Range 3, Parmar Bldgs.……………………………………………….......Respondent 54, G.T. Road, Asansol - 713304 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca & Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 27.08.2014 & The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Projected Therein By Way Of The Following Solitary Ground: “Considering The Facts Of The Case & Relevant Provisions Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Asansol [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Holding That Before Giving Benefit Of Deduction U/S 10B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (The Act) Un-Absorbed Depreciation Brought Forward Had To Be Set Off From The Business Income Of The Year As Against Assessee’S Claim That Assessee Was Eligible For Exemption U/S 10B Of The Act To The Extent Of Rs. 2,25,99,048.64 Against Business Income Of The Year Rs. 2,34,31,833.85 Before Setting Off Of Un-Absorbed Depreciation & Business Loss Brought Forward From Earlier.” 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Solar Photovoltaic Modules Etc.

depreciation of 10A units or non 10A units can be set off against the profits of another 10A units of the assessee. This question was answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the assessee by holding that though Section

M/S. SYNERGY ELECTRIC PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

section 10A, brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and loss are not to be set off against the current year profit of the eligible

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

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

depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56) has interpreted the said term to mean actually allowed’. Thus, in the present case, since no ‘deduction’ has actually been allowed to the Appellant u/s 80IA of the Act in past until AY 2004-05, the Appellant is free to choose 10 out of 15 years for claiming deduction u/s.80IA

M/S. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., [NOW KNOWN AS HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 813/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Pr. Cit, Circle-1, Kolkata (Now Known As Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd) [Pan: Aaach 7475 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A / 10B of the Act was claimed by the assessee as stated by the ld CIT in his order. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of TEI Technologies P Ltd reported in 361 ITR 36 (Del) had held that the stage of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act would be while computing the total