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 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

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 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

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

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

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

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

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 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

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 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 37[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

I.T.O (E) - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SCIENCE MUSEUM, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

section 35(1)(ii) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2 National Council of Science Museum 4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(23C) in the original return and was not claimed in the Revised return. The Finance Officer submitted on 16.12.2011 that there is no approval for claiming exemption

NARAYANI LAXMI VINIYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the due date for A.Y. 2023-24. In the return, the assessee has calculated tax liability @ 22%. However, CPC calculated tax @ 40% and did not give the benefit of lower rate of tax provided under section 115BAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not opted for falling under this scheme by filing Form 10IC. When the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that it has filed the Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd.

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

M/S. BAID TRADE FINA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or 4 M/s. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd. under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

depreciation or under section 35(4) of the Act, i.e. expenditure on scientific research which are carried forward, while giving

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

depreciation, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to adjust the amount of Rs.5,54,25,156/-. 4 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, by following the provisions given in Section 115JB of the Act, the AO computed the book profit as follows :- Book profit as computed by the assessee (-) Rs.3,31,35

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation 2.Low Income Not applicable for EIIL shown by the contractor 3.Large refund Point no. 3 of our 140 claimed of advance letter 140 tax dtd.21.12.15 4.Large deduction u/s . Point no. 2 of our 136 & 137 35, 35(2AA) & letter dtd.18.11.15 and 35(2AB) point no. 2 of 08.03.16 5.High Ratio of Point no. 6 of our 138 Refund

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra, we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal]

35,408/- on such assets. While completing the impugned assessment, Ld. AO has not allowed the said claim of deprecation and made the addition to the total income of the assessee without giving any reason for the same in the assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with