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

4) of 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

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

4) of 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

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 147/148 proceedings raising the very issues on 18.03.2013. It preferred ITA No.1841/Kol/2013 against the same well within time. A co-ordinate bench quashed the reopening under challenge therein in its order dt 18.11.2016 without deciding the three very issues on merits. There is no dispute that the CIT(A) has affirmed all the three impugned disallowances by placing reliance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

disallowance under section 14Aread with rule 8D(2)(i) and (ii) can be made in this case.” 6. Respectfully following the above, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT-A and it is justified. Ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is general in nature and requires

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

4 of section 80-IA . These set of facts have not been disputed by the AO. The Ld. AO disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

4 of section 80-IA . These set of facts have not been disputed by the AO. The Ld. AO disallowed

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4

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]

4. Now we are coming to AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the issues raised before us are covered in assessee’s own case in respect to common ground nos. 1 and 2 for both the assessment years. Since the issues are common in both the appeals we dispose

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowed the claim under section 80IA(4) on the ground that the conditions prescribed under sub-clause (b) of section

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL./JOINT/DY./ASSTT. COMMISSIONER/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowed the claim under section 80IA(4) on the ground that the conditions prescribed under sub-clause (b) of section

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

section 143(3) of the Act dated 26.03.2013 for the Asst Year 2010-11. 2. The Ground No. 1 and 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in denying the deduction claimed

SIMPLEX KRITA JV,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Simplex Krita Jv Ito, Ward-33(1), Kolkata Simplex House, 27, Shakespeare Vs Sarani, Kolkata-700017. Pan: Aalas 5699 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal In Ita No. 181/Kol/2023 For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Ld. Cit In Short], Dated 25.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of deduction of Rs.29,67,937/- u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act without considering that the activities of the appellant-JV were outside the purview of the Explanation below sec. 80-IA(13) of the Act and that the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act have been fully satisfied by the appellant-JV. 4

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

disallowance of Rs.2,11,27,261/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. The disallowance made by the Assessing

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX MEINHARDT JOINT VENTURE, KOLKATA

In the result, both the above appeals of revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4) of the Act. The AO further found that the assessee raised RA bills in accordance with the measurement and held that it is a work contract within the meaning of Explanation to section 80IA, which was substituted by the Finance Act 2009 and came into force w.e.f 1-4-2000 retrospectively. However, ‘the AO considering the status of assessee

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SOMDATT BUILDERS JV, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. On the other hand, the ld.DR submits that the appellant Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta against such order dt. 18-06-2013 passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The matter is still pending for adjudication. But he did not provide any document or evidence to show that

ITO, WD-33(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX SUBHASH JV, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Us The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Issue In Hand Regarding Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Is Covered By The Consolidated Order Dt:18-06-2013 Of The Kolkata Tribunal, ‘B‘ Bench, Kolkata In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No. 1684/Kol/2011 & Ita No. 1685/Kol/2011 For The A.Y 2007-08. The Ld. Ar Also Submits That The 1 M/S. Simplex Subhash J.V

4. On the other hand, the ld.DR submits that the appellant Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta against such order dt:18-06-2013 passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The matter is still pending for adjudication. But he did not provide any document or evidence to show that