ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

ii) The revised return was filed by the assessee after its original return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. iii) Since the revised return was not filed within the time prescribed u/s. 139(5). iv) Since M/s. SYK in its return of income has taken the benefit of loss of its demerged Vortal division, and assessee claiming

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

143(1) r.w.s. 43A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR stated before the bench that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee vide ITA No. 263- 264/Kol/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively where the Tribunal by allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the revenue

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

143(1) r.w.s. 43A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR stated before the bench that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee vide ITA No. 263- 264/Kol/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively where the Tribunal by allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the revenue

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(1)(ii) shall not be interpreted to mean that it impliedly restrict the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. We are of the view that the assessee now is entitled for 50% additional depreciation, because in the year in which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50% of additional

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(1)(ii) shall not be interpreted to mean that it impliedly restrict the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. We are of the view that the assessee now is entitled for 50% additional depreciation, because in the year in which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50% of additional

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

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment\nyear.\n• It may be noted here that the words used in Sec 147, is \"if the AO has\nreason to believe\" and not merely \"If AO believes

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

ii) Capital expenditure (purchase of asset) - RS.73691121/- The deductor company was asked to furnish the details of agreement with S.L.M.L. Sarda & others in respect of the mining lease expenditure and capital expenditure mentioned above. Mr. N.D. Chandak, Asst. Manager Finance appeared and explains that no purchase agreement in respect of purchase of asset or mining lease expenditure was executed between

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2013 and 31.01.2014 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. The facts of assessment year 2010-11 are taken up together for adjudication and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for assessment year 2011-12 also except with variance in figures

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2013 and 31.01.2014 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. The facts of assessment year 2010-11 are taken up together for adjudication and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for assessment year 2011-12 also except with variance in figures

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2013 and 31.01.2014 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. The facts of assessment year 2010-11 are taken up together for adjudication and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for assessment year 2011-12 also except with variance in figures

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2013 and 31.01.2014 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. The facts of assessment year 2010-11 are taken up together for adjudication and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for assessment year 2011-12 also except with variance in figures

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide their orders dated 26.10.2006, 07.12.2007, 31.12.2008, 30.12.2009 & 30.12.2010 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 respectively. Shri Deepaka Chopra & Mrs. Manas Vini Bajpai, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G.Hangshing, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue