DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTHAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD., 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

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

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, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

4) Where an arm’s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price so determined: Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed

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]

4) Where an arm’s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price so determined: Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It was also submitted that the Ld. TPO/AO/DRP erred in making adjustment of INR 9,88,849/- on account of corporate guarantee on behalf of Tega Industries Chile SpA (‘Tega Chile’) by applying CUP method. 6.1 A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of the corporate guarantee

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

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

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

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

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. 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) of the Act relating to Zenith Textiles at Rs.7,67,01,019/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the action of AO in relation to the claim of unabsorbed depreciation relating to AY 1997-98 as under: “7. On the merit of the action taken

DCIT,CIR-11, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken. It is proposed to provide that no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section or under the section

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 ]

depreciation and not allowing set off of brought forward business loss. We will first deal with the issue with regard to deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which the issue with regard to claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act arises for consideration are as follows: ITA Nos.154&155/Kol/2013 – M/s. Lat Peak

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.

section 10B and the said deduction thus was to be allowed on account of business income of the assessee for the year under consideration after adjusting the unabsorbed depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4