SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee is that family was HUF and each of HUF family\nmembers have a separate legal status so the father should be considered as a\nrelative. In this aspect we have gone through the cited decision filed by the\nassessee passed

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

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

VIII, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(A)’ erred in confirming the action of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Assessing Officer') in not allowing set-off of Rs.373,512,000 under clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

56 of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

viii) Details of bank accounts 21. The Second AO acknowledges in his order sheet as on 19.5.2016 that he had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and pursuant to which thirteen (13) share subscribing companies respective Directors had appeared before him on 30/31.05.2016, and they were examined along with their respective books of 18 Bridhi Distributors

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

2. Regarding the Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 215/Kol/2018), the Ld. DR took us through the issues as per their grounds, which challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,02,83,794/- u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. DR averred that it was not a case where the applicability of section

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

2. Regarding the Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 215/Kol/2018), the Ld. DR took us through the issues as per their grounds, which challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,02,83,794/- u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. DR averred that it was not a case where the applicability of section

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

viii) of the Explanation are to be reduced. The figure arrived at after the above exercise is the book profit of the assessee for the relevant previous years. The explanation 1 clause (f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act stipulate that amount of expenditure relatable to any exempt income, other than Section 10(38) of the Act, is liable

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

viii) of the Explanation are to be reduced. The figure arrived at after the above exercise is the book profit of the assessee for the relevant previous years. The explanation 1 clause (f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act stipulate that amount of expenditure relatable to any exempt income, other than Section 10(38) of the Act, is liable

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

viii) of the Explanation are to be reduced. The figure arrived at after the above exercise is the book profit of the assessee for the relevant previous years. The explanation 1 clause (f) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act stipulate that amount of expenditure relatable to any exempt income, other than Section 10(38) of the Act, is liable

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

viii) Details of bank accounts 26. The AO also acknowledges in his re-assessment / second assessment order that he has examined the aforesaid details and thereafter issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all 18 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13 the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness regarding the share transaction

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

56,005/- to conclude that its main activity was that of mere packing mouth freshner's pouches only instead of having carried out any manufacturing as per the deduction provision in question. He noticed fluctuation in consumption of raw material purchases as well. Next came assessee's power and fuel consumption of ₹9,116/- only unreasonably high gross profit ratio