ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

VIA) and an amount not exceeding ten per cent of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner : 4. The amount of deduction claimed has been worked out as below: Rs. The aggregate average advances 4511,62,74,000 made by the rural branches 10% of aggregate average advances

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

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

36,13,143 and ₹41,63,130; appeal-wise, respectively @ 3% of the dividend income only, going by the ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 3 Income Tax Settlement Commission’s order pertaining to the assessment year

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

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

36,13,143 and ₹41,63,130; appeal-wise, respectively @ 3% of the dividend income only, going by the ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 3 Income Tax Settlement Commission’s order pertaining to the assessment year

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

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

36,13,143 and ₹41,63,130; appeal-wise, respectively @ 3% of the dividend income only, going by the ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 3 Income Tax Settlement Commission’s order pertaining to the assessment year

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

VIA will not be admissible if the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. THE JALPAIGURI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Depreciation disallowed Rs. 5,24,657/- vi. Law charges disallowed Rs. 2,03,520/- Total assessed income at Rs. (-) 16,24,31,590/-” 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where the claim of the assessee was partly allowed by ld. CIT(A) observing as follows: “5.8 In respect of the disallowance

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

via invoices from third party suppliers and would be allocated on a per user basis to a deployment country as a one-time start lip fee at the point of go-live. Schedule 4 - Local Akzo Nobel Own Account Costs The costs referred to hereinabove would be incurred and expensed directly by the local deployment country with no recharge taking

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

via invoices from third party suppliers and would be allocated on a per user basis to a deployment country as a one-time start lip fee at the point of go-live. Schedule 4 - Local Akzo Nobel Own Account Costs The costs referred to hereinabove would be incurred and expensed directly by the local deployment country with no recharge taking

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

VIA:- You were asked vide notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 to furnish justification of claiming deduction u/s 80P amounting to Rs. 32,31,376/- specifically mentioning the amount claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(P)(2)(iii), 80P(2)(a)(iv) and 80P(2)(d). 3 Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity

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]

VIA out of gross total income having been crystallised through various judicial precedents and the AO having allowed the deduction under Section 80IC out of the gross total income the CIT was unjustified in law in setting aside the assessment for the reasons set out in Para 2(f) of the SCN. 17) For that on the facts

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

via submission dated 07 July 2014, wherein the assessee has categorically explained why CUP cannot be considered as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty. The relevant portion has been reproduced below for your ready reference: "CUP Method The CUP method cannot be applied to transaction involving the payment oj royalty by RBIL

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

via submission dated 07 July 2014, wherein the assessee has categorically explained why CUP cannot be considered as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty. The relevant portion has been reproduced below for your ready reference: "CUP Method The CUP method cannot be applied to transaction involving the payment oj royalty by RBIL

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

via submission dated 07 July 2014, wherein the assessee has categorically explained why CUP cannot be considered as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty. The relevant portion has been reproduced below for your ready reference: "CUP Method The CUP method cannot be applied to transaction involving the payment oj royalty by RBIL

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

via submission dated 07 July 2014, wherein the assessee has categorically explained why CUP cannot be considered as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty. The relevant portion has been reproduced below for your ready reference: "CUP Method The CUP method cannot be applied to transaction involving the payment oj royalty by RBIL