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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 802/Kol/2013 A.Y 2007-08 D.C.I.T, Circle-1, Kolkata Vs. M/S. The India Jute & Industries Ltd Pan: Aabct1896P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,61,32,164/-, which pertains to the period beyond the stipulated period of eight years limit.” 5. The Learned DR argued that Section 32(2

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

disallowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act just on the basis of loan provided to the wife of the trustee without checking the utilization of the loan given by the assessee. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) on merits submitted as under : a) The advance was given to Dr. M Ghosh to buy property at Alipore, Kolkata

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 was issued and served through the departmental ITBA portal\non 16.08.2018. Notices under section 142(1) of the Act and letters\nwere issued to the assessee company for submission of documents\nthrough departmental ITBA portal. From the record, it is seen that\nthe assessee had not suo moto disallowed any sum under section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

164 of CLPB; Para No. 2)]. Further, in Redington, Madras High Court placed reliance on the decision of Prolifics Corporation Limited [TS-497-ITAT-2014 (HYD)-TP] to uphold that there may not be immediate charge on P & L account, but inherent risk cannot be ruled out in providing guarantees. However, Madras High Court has not considered the decision

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act : Rs. 35,905/- d) Disallowance of Donation expenses : Rs. 4,09,601/- 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

NAGREEKA FOILS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act : Rs. 35,905/- d) Disallowance of Donation expenses : Rs. 4,09,601/- 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules