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]

801A(4) would show that the word 'port' is included therein without any further conditions in regard to its location. In this respect please note that a 'port' is an infrastructure facility irrespective of its location. The location of the jetty at a naval base would not disentitle the same from being a ‘port’ which in itself is an infrastructure

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]

801A(4) would show that the word 'port' is included therein without any further conditions in regard to its location. In this respect please note that a 'port' is an infrastructure facility irrespective of its location. The location of the jetty at a naval base would not disentitle the same from being a ‘port’ which in itself is an infrastructure

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 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

disallowance involving Rs.1,12,60,000/-, Rs.40,38,000/- & Rs.2,48,10,148/-; respectively. 4. Case file suggests that PCIT termed the foregoing regular assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as follows: I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 M/s. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 5. He thus issued section 263 show-cause notice dated

M/S SOFT ZONE TECH PARK LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10

iv) 4 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Soft Zone Tech Park Ltd and (v). 6. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Salapuria Softzone (supra) vide paras 7 to 12 at pages 5 to 10 held as follows:- 7. In view of the above factual position, we are of the view that

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

801A(4) for your Private Railway Sidings. It appears that you have developed and owned two private sidings situated from Nimpura to Gokulpur in West Bengal and Barajamda to Barbil in Odisha and that you have entered into two separate agreements with South Eastern Railways. Perusal of agreements reveals the following: : (i) The private siding was not an infrastructure facility

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

801A(4) for your Private Railway Sidings. It appears that you have developed and owned two private sidings situated from Nimpura to Gokulpur in West Bengal and Barajamda to Barbil in Odisha and that you have entered into two separate agreements with South Eastern Railways. Perusal of agreements reveals the following: : (i) The private siding was not an infrastructure facility

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

801A(4) for your Private Railway Sidings. It appears that you have developed and owned two private sidings situated from Nimpura to Gokulpur in West Bengal and Barajamda to Barbil in Odisha and that you have entered into two separate agreements with South Eastern Railways. Perusal of agreements reveals the following: : (i) The private siding was not an infrastructure facility

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

801A(4) for your Private Railway Sidings. It appears that you have developed and owned two private sidings situated from Nimpura to Gokulpur in West Bengal and Barajamda to Barbil in Odisha and that you have entered into two separate agreements with South Eastern Railways. Perusal of agreements reveals the following: : (i) The private siding was not an infrastructure facility

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd ………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Sagar Estate, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kol - 700001. [Pan: Aaecb6711E] Appearances By: Shri Raja Senguptda, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankit Daga, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

iv) Rs.4,07,171.20/- on account of variation in respect of issue of club expenditure. 3.1 The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.46,79,38,301/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee had been allowed on the issue of disallowance

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)

iv) In addition to the addition u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules, the Ld. AO added the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,82,71,486/- for the purposes of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claiming of TCS to the assessee even when the same was not claimed

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant year, these power plants had generated and distributed power which was entirely consumed by the manufacturing unit of the assessee. Having regard to the provision of Sec. 801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant year, these power plants had generated and distributed power which was entirely consumed by the manufacturing unit of the assessee. Having regard to the provision of Sec. 801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant year, these power plants had generated and distributed power which was entirely consumed by the manufacturing unit of the assessee. Having regard to the provision of Sec. 801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant year, these power plants had generated and distributed power which was entirely consumed by the manufacturing unit of the assessee. Having regard to the provision of Sec. 801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant year, these power plants had generated and distributed power which was entirely consumed by the manufacturing unit of the assessee. Having regard to the provision of Sec. 801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units

DCIT,CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SPML INFRA LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees’! in terms of Sec.36(1)(va)]. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the latter retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section