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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability

depreciation under section 32 of the Act of the said sum. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehmently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities and further submitted that the expenses claimed under the provisions of bad and doubtful debts are not allowable under the Act. The sum payable to the concern SAMPL, deserves to be added

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALLIANCE BROAD BAND SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1318/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Alliance Broad Band Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaeca 3151 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 37(1) of the Act since such expenses are recurrent in nature to keep the business running smoothly on a continuous basis even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. vs CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC), it is not every advantage of enduring

M/S JAI RAJ ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the proviso to section 147 was that the reopening of assessment originally completed under section 143(3) beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without pointing out any failure on the part

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation on 'Trading Stock' and not on 'Capital Asset' used for the purpose of business. ITA No.329/Kol/2017 Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd A.Y.2012-13 2 For the above reasons, the CIT considered the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and he accordingly issued a show cause notice to the Assessee dated 20.9.2013 to the Assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Circle10(1), V/S. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd (India) Ltd., 2?1, Russel Street, 5Th Floor, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 3166 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Agarwallaa, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 16.08.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By Revenue, Which Reads As Under:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That The Customers Of The Assessee Have Settled The Accounts Permanently After Deducting The Liquidated Damages & They Have Refused To Pay The Amount Forever? Was Not He Wrong In Holding That The Assessee Company Has Extinguished Its Right To Receive Money From Its Clients? 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Entertainment Expenses Despite The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of Its Claim? Has Not The Ao The Right To Enquire Into Purpose Of Expenditure & Does The Doctrine That The Businessman Is The Best Judge Of Business Expediency Affect The Rights And

depreciation of Tools & Tackles @ 20% instead of 15% and in doing so it has understated the value of closing stock by Rs.112.28 lakhs? 6. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri P.K. Agarwalla

JESSOP & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

Section 115JB, for arriving at the Book Profit, the net profit is to be reduced by the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. For the purpose of this clause,- a) the loss shall not include depreciation; b) the provisions of this clause shall not apply if the amount of loss

M/S. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LTD.),KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.819/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S. Himadri Chemicals & Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata. Industries Ltd. -Vs- [Now Known As Himadri Specialty Chemical Ltd.] [Pan :Aaach 7475 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) For The Appellant Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2019

155/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 determining total income of Rs.61,66,77,310/- under normal provisions of the Act. In the said assessment, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made to the tune of Rs.99,658/- and adjustment to arm’s length price as proposed by the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

depreciation. He however deleted the interest of Rs. 10,25,506/- charged by the A.O. under section 234D. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In ground no 1 of its appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of the assessment order

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 1532/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2003-04 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………….Appellant Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Acit, Circle 8 Kolkata,...................…………………………………………………….Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 167/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Kolkata.............................………………………………………..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd..............................………………………………………Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower 1, Block Em, Plot-3, Salt Lake City, Sec-V, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

depreciation. He however deleted the interest of Rs. 10,25,506/- charged by the A.O. under section 234D. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee and revenue both are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In ground no 1 of its appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of the assessment order

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file