ITO, WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

7 error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee from claiming deduction so long as the other conditions for making such claim are satisfied. He relied upon the circular issued by the CBDT dated 11.04.1955 wherein it was observed that it is the duty

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

7) Relation to the undertakings. 8. Return of Income should be furnished within Yes Yes The due date specified in Section 139(1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit

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)

7) Relation to the undertakings. 8. Return of Income should be furnished within Yes Yes The due date specified in Section 139(1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit

M/S ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

7. In the result, the assessment is set aside for fresh 'verification end assessment after giving due opportunity to the assessee. A fresh order should be passed after such verification.” 10 M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The Ld. Counsel

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]

Sections 10A and 10B have been substituted by new provisions. This is made clear in para 5.2 of Explanatory Note on Finance Act, 2000.” 7. According to Ld. Counsel, when he went through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tara Agencies (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) he could not find the passage

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]

7,& 8 is that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is required in case transaction exempt u/s 10A & 10B Unit. We note that as per section 92C (4) of the Act, no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income

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]

7,& 8 is that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is required in case transaction exempt u/s 10A & 10B Unit. We note that as per section 92C (4) of the Act, no deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income

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

7. Without prejudice to the Appellant’s claim in Ground No.6 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VI, Kolkata has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,20,90,323 instead of Rs.46,20,484 as offered by the Appellant itself under section 14A in computation of the ‘Book Profit’ under section 115JB.” 32. Sec.115JB

AMBO EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN, CIR-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowed unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside. When there is no change in the facts which were in existence during the earlier years with that of a subsequent assessment year, then the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the claim for exemption under section 10A

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, 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

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]

7 (supra) the STPI vide letter dated 26.09.2011 has replied as under: 12 Vipul Gupta, AY- 2010-11 14. From a perusal of the above letter which is self-explanatory that the assessee proprietorship unit M/s. E-Knowledge Marketing had applied for registration under the STP Scheme and was granted approval as 100% EOU under the STP Scheme vide letter

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

D.C.I.T CC - XXIII,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of Revenue stand allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed as per provision of sec. 80AC of the IT Act. The AO has not considered the abnormal circumstances which prevent to file return in time and AO may be directed to allow deduction considering the abnormal condition assessee was faced for sake of natural justice. 2. That the AO was wrong in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C