SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

SHYAM SUNDAR HAZRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shyam Sundar Hazra Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage. 9. The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 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 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

274 of the Act dated 28..08.2013. The AO finally levied the penalty of ₹23,68,786/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it had claimed depreciation on the land

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

depreciation of Rs. 9,04,543/- from M/s D.K. Enterprises. M/s D.K.Enterprises was claimed to be the proprietary concern of Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF). The assessee in effect admitted additional income of Rs. 9,04,543/- in the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the assessee claimed that it had made voluntary

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) casually and without identification of the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO erred in imposing penalty

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHABHARAT MOTORS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

depreciable” assets in the return of income, and the assessee has claimed Rs.32,12,50,000/- as capital loss and had set it off with its ‘other heads of income’. According to the AO, as per sub-section (3) of section 71 of the Act, when the net result of the computation under the head ‘Capital Gain’ is a loss

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

depreciation disallowed of Rs.36,670/-, bogus sundry creditors of Rs.1,36,795/-, other source of Rs.15,056/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,95,551/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Subsequently, the assessee was served notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 31.12.2007. Thereafter considering the assessee’s submission, the AO imposed penalty

M/S MAA ENGINEERING,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated and notice u/s. 271(1)(c)/274 of the 2 Maa Engineering, AY- 2010-11 Act dated 11.03.2013 was issued and served on the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs. 12,96,181/- as there was loss

M/S AKANKSHA VINIYOG LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -1(4), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation and insurance expenses to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty on the assessee holding that the assessee concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. On appeal by the assessee

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDI. COMMISSIONER OF INCIME TAX, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

274/- under section 35(1)(i) on account of expenditure incurred on Defence Research Development Laboratory. Since the said claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return or by filing a revised return, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the same. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) also did not allow the claim of the assessee

BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CENTAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

depreciation on Tata & JB Loaders at the rate of 30% as claimed in the return of income. 16. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in applying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete

ITO, WARD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SENCO GOLD IMPEX PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

274/-. Security Expenses Rs. 93035/- & Telephone Expenses Rs. 49860/-. All these expenses clearly indicate that manufacturing activity have been carried out in the said unit. The AO has not doubted these expenses. All the purchases consisted of raw gold bars and same ornaments in semi finished stage which has been further processed and finished at the SEZ Unit with

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

M/S. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., [NOW KNOWN AS HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LTD.,],KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 813/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Pr. Cit, Circle-1, Kolkata (Now Known As Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd) [Pan: Aaach 7475 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

274 (SC) held that the claim of section 10A and 10B of the Act falls only under the expression ‘deduction’ and not ‘exemption’. Accordingly it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter

SAMPAT DEVI PATAWARI,RAJASTHAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued a show-cause notice on the ground that six number of machineries , which were purchased from 4th November, 2015 upto 26th November, 2016 could not be put to use because date of installation is not available and accordingly in his opinion, these machineries