M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.D. ESTATES & RESOURCES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. “ 5. When the case was called up for hearing, it was found that the Learned CIT/ DR had sought adjournment for 15 cases out of 27 cases listed for hearing. The Learned AR stated that the issue under dispute is settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

MONDAL EDUCATION TRUST,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed exemption of Rs. 59,12,165/- on the ground that "In the Schedule Part A General "Details of registration or approval under Income Tax details of Section 12AB Act" or 10(23

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23, 2019, duly replied the said Communication dated December 4, 2019 through e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department that the income of the appellant was exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), (b) details of section i.e. section 10(23C) (vi) was clearly selected from the drop down list under column details of projects/institution run by the appellant under

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

23(f) as not applicable. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 19/03/2013, assessing total income at Rs.4,52,54,000/-. The claim for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act, was denied. Further an addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, was made of interest paid during the year to ADDA on the ground that

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

23, Kolkata [ in short, hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 08-07-2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the Revenue’s appeal are directed against the disallowance of Rs.34,29,000/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Rule

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

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

10. Heard and perused the record. The Hon’ble Third Member in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 supra held that the disallowance of 1% as directed by the CIT-A of the exempt income is fair and reasonable. The order of the Hon’ble Third Member was also followed by the CIT-A-XXIV in assessee

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

section\n250(4) of the Act, the Id CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish\nwhether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled\nposition of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure\nis capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the\nassessee

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]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

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]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

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]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

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]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

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]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which