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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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]

1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant

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

1,24,623.00 only which was paid to the remaining 4 parties. Therefore we are inclined to focus the issue of the commission payment to Kunal Pipe. After perusing the order of Authorities Below, we find that the identity of the commission agent in the instant case has not been doubted. The only issue for our consideration arises

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

depreciation of Rs 12,77,67,761. It was also noted that the assessee and Datex India, which was wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee and its marketing arm in India, entered into an agreement dated 26th August 2002 under which the assessee extended an interest free loan denominated in US Dollars, which was equivalent to Rs 36 crores

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

131 of the Act on\n21.02.2020 he has stated that he is a salesman in NR Garments at Sampark Mall, gate No. 02,\nShop No. 12, Lindsey Street, Kolkata. Further during the course of his statement Sri Prakash\nSonkar was asked about his directorship in various companies including is Shivashiv\nDealtrade Pvt. Ltd, the data of which is available

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]

1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

131/- the balance amount of Rs.27,33,470/- was disallowed by the AO and added to the total income of the Assessee. 49. Before the DRP the assessee submitted that there was no borrowed funds on which interest was paid that was used to make investments which yielded tax payable income and that the entire investments were made

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

131/- the balance amount of Rs.27,33,470/- was disallowed by the AO and added to the total income of the Assessee. 49. Before the DRP the assessee submitted that there was no borrowed funds on which interest was paid that was used to make investments which yielded tax payable income and that the entire investments were made

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]

1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant

LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(A), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 524/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

1)(ii) of the act provides for depreciation on intangible assets including knowhow, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises, or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after 1st day of April 1998. Hence from the combined reading of OECD, definition of knowhow and provisions of section

D.C.I.T. CIR-12, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. USHA MARTIN TELEMATICS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

depreciation or appreciation,theassessee has credited the gain in profit and loss account and such recognition of income is as per AS-11. c.Ld. DR also relied on the following judgments where similar issues have been decided in favour of Revenue: 1)Hon`ble C Bench ITAT, Kolkata in case of ITO ward 12(3) Kolkata Vs. UMT Investments