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

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

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, 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

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

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.

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

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the asssesse in ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

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

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

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from

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

5 years 30% However the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f. AY 2000-01 allowed the assessee to choose the ten years of tax holiday out of 15 year beginning from initial assessment year. However the assessee was covered under the old provision of the section 80IA of the Act wherein the deduction was available to it for 10 continuous years from