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

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

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

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

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

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

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 submissions of assessee held that the assessee was not a works contractor as treated by the AO. The CIT-A was of the view that the assessee was a developer

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

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 submissions of assessee held that the assessee was not a works contractor as treated by the AO. The CIT-A was of the view that the assessee was a developer

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

10-B, Middleton Row, 3rdfloor, Kolkata-700071 … Appellant Revenue vs M/s. Simplex Subhash J.V. PAN: AABAS9441B 12/1, Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata-700087 … Respondent Assessee For the Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT –DR For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA Date of hearing : 12-10-2017 Date of pronouncement : 13-12-2017 ORDER ShriS.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance was made on the\nlast ray of assessment purely on suspicion.\n20. According to us, the fact that high profits were earned by the eligible unit in\ncomparison to other businesses by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the\ndeduction claimed u/s 80IE was excessive. In this regard, it would first be\nrelevant to examine theprovisions of sub-section

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

disallowance of deduction. 19. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following submissions on this issue: “3. Matter related to deduction claimed under section 80-1A of the Act: (A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under section 80IA(4) (iv) of the income tax Act.1961

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

disallowance of deduction.\n19. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following\nsubmissions on this issue:\n“3. Matter related to deduction claimed under section 80-1A of the Act:\n(A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under\nsection 80IA(4) (iv) of the income

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

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

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

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

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’).

10. Now coming to the merits of the deduction u/s. 801A(4) of the Act. A perusal of the provisions of section 801A(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation 'infrastructure facility' has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development

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)

10% of the total provision made by the assessee remained excess. Moreover, such excess provision was subsequently reversed by the assessee and offered to tax as the same rate as submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee resulting into no loss with the Revenue. Having regard to all these facts of the case, it cannot be said that

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)

10% of the total provision made by the assessee remained excess. Moreover, such excess provision was subsequently reversed by the assessee and offered to tax as the same rate as submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee resulting into no loss with the Revenue. Having regard to all these facts of the case, it cannot be said that

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)

10% of the total provision made by the assessee remained excess. Moreover, such excess provision was subsequently reversed by the assessee and offered to tax as the same rate as submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee resulting into no loss with the Revenue. Having regard to all these facts of the case, it cannot be said that

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)

10% of the total provision made by the assessee remained excess. Moreover, such excess provision was subsequently reversed by the assessee and offered to tax as the same rate as submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee resulting into no loss with the Revenue. Having regard to all these facts of the case, it cannot be said that