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

disallowed and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 7. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. The CIT-A after considering the consolidated order in assessee’s own case supra for the A.Y 2008-09 of the Kolkata Tribunal and his earlier order for the A.Y 2009-10 directed the AO to allow deduction

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

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

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

disallowing deduction claimed u/s 801A (4) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO in denying the benefit u/s 80- IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee does not have any agreement with specified authority without appreciating

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

disallowing deduction claimed u/s 801A (4) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO in denying the benefit u/s 80- IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee does not have any agreement with specified authority without appreciating

ACIT,CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIMPLEX PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara& Sri M. Balaganesh] I.T.A. No. 279/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata...……...………………………..…Appellant M/S. Simplex Projects Pvt. Ltd..................................…………….…………….….……………….…......Respondent 12/1, Nellie Sen Gupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087 [Pan – Aadcs 8598 R] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, A/R,Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit, Sr.Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 12Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11Th,2018 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Revenue’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata (Hereinafter The ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 29/11/2016 Passed In Case No. 581/Cit(A)-12/Kol./Range- 12/2014-15 Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Section 80-Ia Deduction Claim Of Rs.14,22,39,344/- In Assessment Order Dated 28/12/2010 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’).

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act on the ground that by the Finance Act 2007 new explanation has been inserted to sub-section (13) of 80-lA wherein it was explained that a person who enters into a contract with another person for executing a works contract will not be eligible for deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance computed under Rule 8D is also held to be unjustified in view of the decision of the Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Industries Ltd. (165 ITD 27) and that of Bombay High Court in CIT vs JSW Energy Ltd. (60 taxmann.com 303). The addition as discussed in terms of Clause

DCIT/CIR-12/KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

D.C.I.T CIR - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal