SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allow- ance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior no- tice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action un- der Section 132 being resorted

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

depreciation disallowance by quoting section 32(1)(iia) in the twin assessment years (supra) deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance as well with main appeal ITA No.471/Kol/2018 in assessment year 2007-08 and former substantive ground in latter assessment year 2008-09 fail accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in Assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

depreciation disallowance by quoting section 32(1)(iia) in the twin assessment years (supra) deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance as well with main appeal ITA No.471/Kol/2018 in assessment year 2007-08 and former substantive ground in latter assessment year 2008-09 fail accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in Assessment

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

132 of the Act, however it was not appearing in the copy of Panchnama. The return of income for the AY 2016-17 was filed on 17.10.2016 disclosing loss of ₹1,46,903/-. During the Previous year ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. corresponding to the AY 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

1) of the Act albeit for AY 2015-16 wherein the Question no. 2 reads as under (Page 38 of paper-book): “2. Please give copy of Form 29B and Computation of Income. Give details and explanation of short term capital gains as appearing in the ‘computation of Total Income’ and legal basis of set off of business losses with

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

132(4) did not qualify as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAA. (3) That the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering the fact that the provisions of Clause (ii) of Sub- 1 ITA No.1082/Kol/2013-B-AM M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd section (2) of Sec. 271AAA has not been fulfilled in the assessee

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

132(KER) that no further deductions and allowances other than stipulated in Explanation 1 are available. The Honourable Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions has held in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India reported in [2012J 17 taxmann.com 202 (Se) as follows:- "71 We have to give effect to the language of the section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

132(KER) that no further deductions and allowances other than stipulated in Explanation 1 are available. The Honourable Apex Court on the interpretation of provisions has held in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India reported in [2012J 17 taxmann.com 202 (Se) as follows:- "71 We have to give effect to the language of the section

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

depreciation on aircraft in terms of section 38(2) of the Act vide his section 263 order dated 30.1.2013. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 529/Kol/2013- M/s. EIH Limited 3 C-AM 3.2. The Learned AR argued that during the relevant previous year, the assessee maintained two aircrafts bearing Registration No. VT EJZ (King

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, any undisclosed income which is found or declared after the date of search initiated u/s 132 of the Act on or after 1.6.2007, the assessee will be liable for penalty on the said amount which is not already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Hence the Learned CITA