HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 1 raised

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., AY 2008-09 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN GUMS & CHEMICAL LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

section 10B (4) of the Act is very categorical and unambiguous. Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., AY 2008-09 5.3.2. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly

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

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

M/S. ZENITH EXPORTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

10B(6) read with section 32 of the Act, if any deduction for any relevant assessment years ending before 01.04.2001 has been given full effect then the same neutralizes the provision of section 32(2) of the Act. However, in the present case, while working out unabsorbed depreciation

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 and loss are not to be set off against the current year profit of the eligible unit. Since the provisions of section 10A are analogous with the provisions of Section 10B

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

A.C.I.T CIR - 36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TEA PROPOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . ITA No.1841. 1897, 2161-62/Kol/13 & 623/Kol/14 A.Ys 02-03 to 04-05 M/s Tea Promoters (I) Pt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Rng-4, Kol. Page 6 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (1) is applicable. Therefore, on the face of it, the exception is not applicable to assessment year 2007-08, which is the year before us. This view is strengthened by the memorandum and the circular mentioned above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the deduction to 90% of the profits

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (1) is applicable. Therefore, on the face of it, the exception is not applicable to assessment year 2007-08, which is the year before us. This view is strengthened by the memorandum and the circular mentioned above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the deduction to 90% of the profits

M/S TECHNICO OVERSEAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 757 - 759/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Technico Overseas -Vs- Ito, Ward-43(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aadft 2896 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section (1) is applicable. Therefore, on the face of it, the exception is not applicable to assessment year 2007-08, which is the year before us. This view is strengthened by the memorandum and the circular mentioned above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the deduction to 90% of the profits