M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of income- tax. In cases where manual

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: “3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 251(2) of the Act to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore we note that the impugned order was passed enhancing the income without giving proper / reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 9. Be that as it may be, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order after going through the assessment folder which contained

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 133(6)/ 131 of the Act. But the AO erred in doing and doubted the payment of the commission on several grounds. Indeed in the immediate preceding year the amount of commission payment was of meager amount and in the current year it has increased manifolds. In this regard we find that the fact that the turnover

VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: "3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal]

131 Taxman 386. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: "3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

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

131-135) The Hon'ble Cuttack Tribunal in the case of Maxcare (supra) after considering the difference in the language of section 80HH and 80IA held that “all sorts of income which are inextricably related to carrying on the business of industrial undertaking are to be considered for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and accordingly, interest income and miscellaneous

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

131, 246A and 253, and submitted that, no amendment has been made to Section 263 of the Act, as a consequence of insertion to Section 144C of the Act. 5.2. Without prejudice to these arguments, the ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that clause (C) of explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act, provides that “matters not considered and decided

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation was allowed in earlier years. 34 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 65/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 66/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 67/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 Assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation was allowed in earlier years. 34 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 65/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 66/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 67/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 Assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation was allowed in earlier years. 34 I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 65/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1750/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 66/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1829/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 C.O. No. 67/Kol/2016 A/o. I.T.A. No. 1830/Kol/2016 Assessment

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation and interest, total income of Rs.63,96,81,915/- was declared by the assessee. On the basis of the documents impounded during the course of survey, the evidences collected during the course of assessment proceedings and the statement recorded under section 131