DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

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

Section 10B; interest subsidy qualified for claiming pro-rata deduction. However, since the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee's EOU was one and the same; the interest subsidy was eligible for 100% deduction u/s 10B of the I. T. Act The AO is accordingly directed to allow the deduction permissible u/s 10B with regard to interest subsidy

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

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

Section 10B; interest subsidy qualified for claiming pro-rata deduction. However, since the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee's EOU was one and the same; the interest subsidy was eligible for 100% deduction u/s 10B of the I. T. Act The AO is accordingly directed to allow the deduction permissible u/s 10B with regard to interest subsidy

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

disallowed on non-deduction of TDS, it is necessary to revisit the relevant provisions of the Act - Sections 5, 9, 195 and 40(a)(i). While Section 5 deals with scope of total income, Section 9 is about income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Further, retracing from Section 9(1), it is mentioned, in Clause (i) thereof that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

disallowed on non-deduction of TDS, it is necessary to revisit the relevant provisions of the Act - Sections 5, 9, 195 and 40(a)(i). While Section 5 deals with scope of total income, Section 9 is about income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Further, retracing from Section 9(1), it is mentioned, in Clause (i) thereof that

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 and Section 10AA later introduced serve the very same purpose of granting exemption on the profits

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Section 37(1) of the Act would automatically apply. 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under dispute had emanated from the sales tax assessment. The appeal against the levy of penalty had been preferred by the assessee dealer before the appellate authority under Sales tax act and the same is pending disposal. Hence

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN GUMS & CHEMICAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

Section 37(1) of the Act would automatically apply. 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under dispute had emanated from the sales tax assessment. The appeal against the levy of penalty had been preferred by the assessee dealer before the appellate authority under Sales tax act and the same is pending disposal. Hence

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTHAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

Disallowance of other income while computing the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Ground nos. 1 and 2 of revenue appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is having a 100% EOU at Viramgram. The assessee company claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act to the tune

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

Disallowance of other income while computing the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Ground nos. 1 and 2 of revenue appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is having a 100% EOU at Viramgram. The assessee company claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Act to the tune

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2002-03

section 10B deduction. We thus adopt judicial consistency to delete this disallowance as well. ITA No.2442/Kol/2016 M/s Tea Promoter (India) (P)Ltd. A.Y.2002-03 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.05.2018. [M.Balaganesh] [ S.S. Godara ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 09.05.2018 [RG Sr.PS] Copy of the order forwarded to: 1

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

Section 92C of the Income-\ntax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962\n(the Rules).\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law to also ignore the\nfundamental fact that LIBOR is just the inter-bank rate to transact between\nbanks and to determine arm's length interest

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 92C of the Income-\ntax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962\n(the Rules).\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law to also ignore the\nfundamental fact that LIBOR is just the inter-bank rate to transact between\nbanks and to determine arm's length interest

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance without appreciating that the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(1) of the Act did not make any adverse comment under section 37 (1) of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the details of the said transaction submitted by the appellant to the Ld. TPO and subsequently

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 92C of the Income-\ntax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962\n(the Rules).\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law to also ignore the\nfundamental fact that LIBOR is just the inter-bank rate to transact between\nbanks and to determine arm's length interest

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

1 of the appeal\nis dismissed.\n24. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent of ₹40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground”. 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure