M/S ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

section 10A and 10AA deduction. Again on a hearing held on 12.02.2013, the AO has recorded the fact that the assessee has filed submissions of 20.09.2012 explaining calculation of deduction u/s 10A and 10AA and reasons for adjustment of income and expenses claimable u/s 10AA of the Act. 7. The AO passed an order of assessment u/s 143(3

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 7.2 Section 211(1), 211(2), 211(3), 211(3A), 211(3B) and 211(3C) of Companies Act 1956: 211. FORM AND CONTENTS OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 7.2 Section 211(1), 211(2), 211(3), 211(3A), 211(3B) and 211(3C) of Companies Act 1956: 211. FORM AND CONTENTS OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 7.2 Section 211(1), 211(2), 211(3), 211(3A), 211(3B) and 211(3C) of Companies Act 1956: 211. FORM AND CONTENTS OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS

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]

sections 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 3 4 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case

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]

sections 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 3 4 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case

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 and brought forward depreciation, deduction for an amount of Rs.3,22,18,140/- which was erroneously allowed u/s 10A

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

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

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.

3 I.T.A. No. 2004/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Synergy Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. deduction under section 10B. He, however, held that the unabsorbed depreciation was liable to be set off against the business income before allowing deduction under section 10B and the said deduction thus was to be allowed on account of business income of the assessee

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

3 to section 115JB makes it evidently clear that section 115JB is applicable only to entities registered and recognized to be companies under the Companies Act, 1956. Since the assessee is not a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 , section 211(2) and proviso thereon is not applicable and ITA Nos. 1622/Kol/2011 & M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation 12 451/Kol/2013-A-AM

DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

3 to section 115JB makes it evidently clear that section 115JB is applicable only to entities registered and recognized to be companies under the Companies Act, 1956. Since the assessee is not a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 , section 211(2) and proviso thereon is not applicable and therefore consequently we hold that the provisions of 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

10A are analogous with the provisions of Section 10B, we respectfully follow the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogwa India Ltd (supra) and J.P. Morgan India Ltd. (supra) and direct the AO to allow deduction under section 10B to the assessee as computed on the profits of the eligible unit for the year under

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in excluding other receipts amounting to Rs.765,866 from the profits of the eligible business, while computing deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in excluding other receipts amounting to Rs.765,866 from the profits of the eligible business, while computing deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case