DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

94,965/- relating to nineteen tea estates but denied the balance deduction of Rs.65,17,71,923 relating to twenty-two tea estates. The AO had observed that his predecessors in the income tax assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the earlier years had denied the same, holding that these twenty-two tea estates did not fulfil

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

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

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

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

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

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

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

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

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

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

94,940/-. The assessee is claiming deduction under 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 being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee being an existing industrial undertaking had acquired

CAROLINA FOOD AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

94,36,907/- against short-term capital gain, set off only Rs.9,48,90,106/- against short-term capital gain and Rs.1,21,88,323/- against income from other sources and balance unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,23,58,478/- was set off against long-term capital gain. 21. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(Appeals) held that since

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee being an existing industrial undertaking had acquired

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee being an existing industrial undertaking had acquired

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee being an existing industrial undertaking had acquired

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case therein are that the assessee being an existing industrial undertaking had acquired