DCIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, DARJEELING vs. NARENDRA TEA COMPANY (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance on the ground that blending and export of tea by the assessee qualifies for benefit only after incorporation of the definition clause of ‘manufacture’ from the 2005 Act in Section 10AA of the Act. On appeal, Held “that the provisions of Section 10A

LIMTEX INFOTECH LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1368/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Limtex Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-7(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabcl 0088 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10A has been disallowed only on the ground that the approval to the STP has not been granted by the Inter

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 92 of the Act. Therefore, if 38 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 the 10A and 10B unit sales goods/services to its AE, the arm`s length price should be computed. However, we note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the ld TPO has already included the sale of 10A & 10B units

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 92 of the Act. Therefore, if 38 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 the 10A and 10B unit sales goods/services to its AE, the arm`s length price should be computed. However, we note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the ld TPO has already included the sale of 10A & 10B units

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

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

section 10A of the Act was deduction provision and he accordingly computed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act as follows :- “ Since no divisible income is assessed after set off of brought forward business loss, brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward depreciation, deduction for an amount of Rs.3,22,18,140/- which was erroneously allowed u/s 10A

ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIPUL GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 10A of the Act. Hence we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and made disallowance of Rs.4,16,882/- under third limb of the rule 8D(2). The assessee had computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2) for the very same sum of Rs.4,16,882/- but had not made any disallowance as it claimed that the said disallowance pertains to 10A

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and made disallowance of Rs.4,16,882/- under third limb of the rule 8D(2). The assessee had computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2) for the very same sum of Rs.4,16,882/- but had not made any disallowance as it claimed that the said disallowance pertains to 10A

CHEMICAL & METALLURGICAL DESIGN CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT- (OSD), CEN. CIR-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T (Ss) A.Nos.94 & 95/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and made disallowance of Rs.4,16,882/- under third limb of the rule 8D(2). The assessee had computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2) for the very same sum of Rs.4,16,882/- but had not made any disallowance as it claimed that the said disallowance pertains to 10A

AKHIL BHARATVARSHIYA CH KSH MAHASABHA,KOLKATA vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 380/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Akhil Bharatvarshiya Ch Ksh Mahasabha,..Appellant C/O. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, West Bengal [Pan:Aaaaa8373R] -Vs.- Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc),……...Respondent Bengaluru, Income Tax Department, Post Box No. 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bengaluru-560100 Appearances By: Shri Deep Agrawal, A.R. & Shri Subhankar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

disallowance of exemption under section 11 and section 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.25,13,870/-, solely on the ground of nonregistration under section 12AB. without appreciating that the appellant was already registered under section 12AA since 01.04.2006. (2) That the Ld. C1T(A) erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee