D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowed. 27. In first appeal before the CIT-A the assessee submitted that it entitled to claim additional depreciation i.e the sum equal to the 20% of the actual cost of machinery u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act that in case of a new machinery or plant acquire or installed after 31st day of March 2005 and relied

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply in the case of transfer, either in whole or in part, of machinery or plant previously used

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance was made. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2011-12 u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 and after looking into the matter, AO noted that 2 Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no undisclosed income

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

disallowed as the provisions of section 115JB, amended w.e.f. 1.4.2008, do not permit the deduction u/s. 10A. In this respect the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted the assessee from taxability u/s. 115JB. The assessee further took the plea that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted all units situated in Special Economic Zones from

SUGOTA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

disallowing the claims made by the assessee on account of payment of salary. 10. The question is whether the ld. CIT(A) has such powers of enhancement u/s 251(1) of the Act. This bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) from para 7 onwards held as follows: “7. Section

MANJIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [Pan : Aaecm 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the ld. D/R, did not make any submissions. 6. I have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, I hold as follows:- 7. Section

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

disallowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.952839/- from income from other sources ignoring the mandate of section 32(2) read with section 72(2) of I.T.ACT, 1961 and settled law. The same be allowed in full. (2)b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in agreeing with AO in ignoring that

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (ii ) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose: 45 [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply in the case of transfer, either in whole or in part, of machinery or plant previously

DCIT, CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUBLIME AGRO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.146/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Cir-4(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Sublime Agro Limited 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Room 4Th Floor, Room No.11B, Aayakar No.201-203, Kolkata – 700 Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee 071. Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 1804 P (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By:Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.102/Cit(A)-2/2014-15, Dated 12.11.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ie To The Sum Of Rs.2,14,72,852/-. When The Assessee Co. Had Not Satisfied The Condition Laid Down In The Act For Such Allowance. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Is Not Verifying The Assessee’S Mere Submission & Ignoring Altogether The Ao’S Conclusion That The Assessee’S Claim Was Not Eligible For Such Deduction. 3. The Revenue Shall Crave To Add Or Alter Any Other Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in the said section; (ii ) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. (7) For the purposes of this section,— (i ) "initial assessment year" means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins

NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance of I.T.A. No. 873/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Nipha Exports Private Limited Rs.77,369/- and Rs.17,000/- under section 14A and Wealth Tax respectively. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the concerned ld. Principal CIT and on such examination, he was of the view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

M/S. UJJAL TRANSPORT AGENCY,ASANSOL vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee's CO is partly allowed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1601/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Ujjal Transport Agency, -Vs- Dcit, Central, Circle-Xvi, Kolkata G.T.Road(East), Murgasole Asansol Pan : Aaafu 6732 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Amit Agarwal, Adv. For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2014 Order

33B of the Act, Explanation, mining activity would bring the assessee within the definition of an industrial undertaking. But we need not import the definition of another section to the present one, although ordinarily the definition given in one section in an Act can be used for the purposes of another section unless the context indicates otherwise

M/S. BLA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Bla Industries Pvt.Ltd. V/S. Pr. Cit-1, 84, Maker Chambers Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Kolkata 400021 [Pan No.Aabcb 3505 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit-Dt ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02--2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In M.No.Pr. Cit-1/15- 16/U/S263/Bla Industries/2011-12/12629-31 Dated 23/28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Shri Robin Maheshwari, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 2. In This Assessee’S Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1) For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Hence Liable To Be Quashed.

disallowance of ₹3,53,387/- under the provision of Sec. 14A of the Act vide order dated 19.03.2014. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed that assessee has claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery for ₹12,69,860/- u/s 32 (1)(iia) of the Act which was not verified by the AO during the course

ACIT, CIRCLE - 41, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ANMOL TEXTILES,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2031/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-41, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anmol Textiles [Pan: Aadfn 4059 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in the sum of Rs 7,26,56,048/- and completed the assessment. 4. The ld CITA granted deduction u/s 10B of the Act by observing as under:- “I have examined the submissions made by the Ld. AR , the findings of the AO in the assessment order, perused the facts

MRITYUNJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1),, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. In the return of income, the auditor of the assessee has committed an error by mentioning the due date for making the payment of employees’ and employer’s contribution towards the Provident Fund Account and accordingly