DIPSC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I T CIR - VI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

depreciation. Returns dated 29.9.2009 and 19.10.2010 were filed under section 115 JB of the Act whereas in the return dated 31.3.2011 it is alleged that the provisions under section 115JB have no application to the assessee being a Power Generating Company. The AO by way of order dated 01.10.2011 assessed the income of the assessee

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

234 (Del.). In the said case, it was held as under: "The assessing officer has been given power to reassess under section 147 upon certain conditions being satisfied, and the assessing officer does not have power to review. If such a change of opinion were to be permitted as a ground of reassessment then it would amount to granting

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

234 (Del.). In the said case, it was held as under: "The assessing officer has been given power to reassess under section 147 upon certain conditions being satisfied, and the assessing officer does not have power to review. If such a change of opinion were to be permitted as a ground of reassessment then it would amount to granting

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation in consonance with second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of Act. Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 3 of revenue. 7 AY: 2013-14 M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd. 5. The issue raised in ground no. 4 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) whereby

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation claimed 7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR 4. After conducting enquiries with

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

234/-, ₹80,97,963/- ,₹57,051,53,98, ₹19,38,38,674/-;(assessment year-wise) respectively, as deleted during the lower appellate proceedings. The Revenue states very fairly that at the outset that all the relevant fact qua the above sole issue are identical in these five assessment year(s). We therefore treat ITA 1962/Kol/2016 for assessment year

LUXMI TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CEN-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 731/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Luxmi Co. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Central-2 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaact 8466 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017. Order

Depreciation as per I.T.Act 1,99,23,624 19,27,50,303 ii)Dividend income fully exempted u/s 10(34) of the Act 1,08,73,870 iii)Replantation Subsidy fully exempted u/s 10(30) of I.T.Act 9,87,630 iv) Profit on sale of green leaf 26,146 v)Long Term Capital gains(considered under Capital Gains

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 32 of the Act in respect of intangible assets, it could be safely concluded that depreciation is allowed on intellectual property being knowhow and such intellectual property is not required to be registered with any government authority. Know how is an intangible property, rights in respect of which can be bought and sold. As per the Law Lexicon dictionary

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 32 of the Act in respect of intangible assets, it could be safely concluded that depreciation is allowed on intellectual property being knowhow and such intellectual property is not required to be registered with any government authority. Know how is an intangible property, rights in respect of which can be bought and sold. As per the Law Lexicon dictionary

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1921/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 1998-99 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-11, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6950 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Jcit, Sr.Dr

234/-. The net profit as per profit & loss accounts for assessment year 1998-1999 was arrived at after taking into account expenses debited on provision for bad and doubtful debts Amounting to Rs.13,99,000/-. The Madras High Court in the case of Beard Cell Ltd. Reported in 244 ITR 256 has held that provision for doubtful debts/advance

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the asssesse in ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

234 ITR 828, wherein it was held that the provisions of section 115JA of the Act has application both to foreign and domestic companies. 6.2. He also argued that even banks are to be assessed as a company under the Income Tax Act as per section 11 stated supra. He argued that section 10(38) of the Act, through