UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

36(1)(viii) by Rs.30,80,96,948/ in his order which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores by invoking Rule

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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.”

36(1)(iii) for interest paid on loan taken for purchase of shares. The AO disallowed the interest u/s 14A and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the claim was unsustainable. The penalty was deleted by the appellate authorities. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

36(1)(vii) and thus the same is not allowable. Further, the Supreme Court has also ruled that deduction can also not be claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, provision for NPA of Rs. 1,371 lakhs was added back by AO in the computation of total income

ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

36(1)(vii) and thus the same is not allowable. Further, the Supreme Court has also ruled that deduction can also not be claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, provision for NPA of Rs. 1,371 lakhs was added back by AO in the computation of total income

BEEYU OVERSEAS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIR.4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

1) dated 04.02.2020 for A.Y. 2010-11 passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata dated 13.02.2013. 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal which was filed on 30.06.2020. From

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

viii) Jagdamba Spong Pt. Ltd. ix) J.S.Forge Ltd. x) Kokda Steel (P)- Ltd. xi) N.S. Ispta (I) Ltd xii) Om Sairman Steel & Alloys xiii) Shri Melcast Pvt. Ltd. xiv) S.K.K.Steel Enterprises Pvt Ltd. xv) Shiv Real Ispat Pvt Ltd. xvi) Shree Hanuman Tubes Pvt Ltd. xvii)Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Similarly the assessee paid the commission to Pardip Kumar

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

viii. As per the contract the assessee is not supposed to sublet / assign any portion of the work. 2 3 Adhunik Infrastructure (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 ix. The exact work to be done has been specified in the contract. The ld AO based on the above observed that the assessee has no discretion in the work to be done

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment\nyear.\n• It may be noted here that the words used in Sec 147, is \"if the AO has\nreason to believe\" and not merely \"If AO believes

AURELIA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub- section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 201/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-12 , -Vs.- M/S. J.J.Exporters Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6722 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri R.N.Bajoria, Shri A.Gupta & Shri S.Jhajharia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.11.2011 Of C.I.T.(A)-Xii, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition U/S. 36(1)(Iii) Made On The Basis Of Auditor'S Certificate In The Form 3Cd. “

36(1)(viii) has been shown at Nil. Further under the earlier column regarding disallowance u/s 14A wrongly an amount of Rs.14,60,01,802.60 was shown. Actually, this amount represented the expenses incurred from the gross receipts eligible unit u/s 10B. Since only the net amount i.e. a net profit after deduction was claimed u/s 10B, no further amount