BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801B(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai234Delhi64Rajkot36Indore24Ahmedabad24Kolkata23Pune18Chennai15Bangalore13Hyderabad10Jaipur9Lucknow8Cochin5Nagpur4Jodhpur4Surat3Amritsar3Guwahati3Dehradun2Ranchi2Raipur2Chandigarh1Kerala1Agra1Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I39Deduction23Section 26319Section 143(3)17Section 801B16Section 8015Section 80l13Section 8O10Disallowance10Addition to Income

I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

ITA 568/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S. Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Vs Ito, M/S. Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 78, Bentinck Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Ito, Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh.D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 Order

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 80I

section shall apply to any undertaking which executes the housing project as a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government). In view of the above, the assessee AOP is not entitled to deduction u/s 801B(10) of the IT Act 1961 on this count.” 4. For the reasons given above, the AO disallowed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRICON AGROVAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 10B9
Condonation of Delay6

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2300/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2(1) -Vs- M/S. Amricon Agrovat (P).Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan Aadca 1610 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.Cit Dr For The Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing : 15.2.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 27.9.2016 Of Cit(A)-20, Kolkata, Relating To Ay 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue In This Reads As Follows: “(I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Term 'Manufacture' Occurring In The Context Of Section 80-Ib Does Not Necessarily Require That The End Product Of The Manufacturing Process Is To Be Completely Different From The Ingredients, As Regards Its Chemical Composition, Integral Structure Or Its Use. (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Manufacturing Of Poultry Feeds Does Not Amount To Mere Mixing Together Of All Different Ingredients, Without Involving Any Change In The Chemical Composition Of The Ingredients. (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Accepting That The Process Of Preparation Of Poultry Feeds Amount To Production Of An Article Within The Meaning Of Section 80Ib. (Iv) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.1,12,50,626/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80-Ib.

For Appellant: Shri.S.Dasgupta Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 14ASection 80Section 801B(4)Section 80I

10. It is not disputed before us that the facts and circumstances in the present AY are identical to facts and circumstances that prevailed in AY 2010-11 decided by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we respectfully follow the decision rendered by the Tribunal and hold that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the claim of the Assessee

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

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

10 consecutive assessment years. The AO per se has not disputed that the assessee's EOU satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 10B and accordingly the AO did not also dispute that deduction was permissible to the assessee u/s 108 of the Act. However, only in respect of receipts by way of "duty draw back" amounting to Rs.3

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

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

10 consecutive assessment years. The AO per se has not disputed that the assessee's EOU satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 10B and accordingly the AO did not also dispute that deduction was permissible to the assessee u/s 108 of the Act. However, only in respect of receipts by way of "duty draw back" amounting to Rs.3

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

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

10 consecutive assessment years. The AO per se has not disputed that the assessee's EOU satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 10B and accordingly the AO did not also dispute that deduction was permissible to the assessee u/s 108 of the Act. However, only in respect of receipts by way of "duty draw back" amounting to Rs.3

ITO, WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S B. U. GARDENS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 598/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 598/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-12(3), Kolkata…...….…….…………...……………………………………………….……..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. B.U. Gardens Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………………………………………………………......…..Respondent Anand Apartment 2 Rowland Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 2595 A]

Section 250Section 80

801B(10) of the Act came into force w.e.f. 0l.04.2005 i.e. AY 2005-06 and the project was completed in FY. 2007-08, i.e. till then the project was completed and the said clause had already come into force w.e.f. AY 2005-06, thereby applicable for the assessee also. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S MARTIN BURN LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2169/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A Nos.2169 & 2170/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-4(2) -Vs.- M/S. Martin Burn Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcm 9913 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section the total build up area of shops and other commercial establishment should not exceed five percent of the aggregate built up area of the housing project or 2000 sq.ft whichever is less. Since in this case the built up area of shop and other commercial establishments is only 10,245 sq.ft deduction is not allowable/s 80IB and so deduction

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GUJRAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 68/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-12, -Versus- M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg 6225 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801Section 801BSection 80ISection 80l

10,62,757/-. The order u/.s 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2006 with total income of Rs.28,21,61,830/-. Thereafter, the Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2011, after recording the reasons for reopening. The assessee company has claimed deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act of Rs.10,14,76,091/- in respect of Khambalia unit

EVERGREEN DRUMPS & CANS PVT LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T CIR - I,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 186/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri D.Niyogy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80ISection 80l

801B of the Income Tax act. (b) That the Appellant submits that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient causes for the alleged non compliance and as such from the point of equity Evergreen Drums & Cons Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 and justice further opportunity should be given to tne Assessee submitting the Form No. 10CCB in support

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1741/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ITA No. 2299/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2014-15 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of CIT (Appeal

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2299/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ITA No. 2299/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2014-15 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of CIT (Appeal

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 918/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 917/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2294/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2295/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

10,21,06,200/- in respect of its Units at Pandicharry, Goa ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 and Jammu by disregarding that it was not correctly apportioned ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order

M/S DEEPAK SPINNERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-11/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ISection 80l

10,00,000/- made in assessment (out of total sum of Rs. 5,29,21,590/- claimed and debited in P&L a/c.) purely on estimate and merely on assumption and presumption without basis and without properly considering and appreciating the facts that the a/cs. regularly maintained were fully audited and the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively

D.C.I.T CC - XX,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TODAYS WRITTING PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1773/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: David Z.Chowngthu, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Meharia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 80ISection 80l

section shall be available to an Assessee for ten consecutive assessment years starting from the initial assessment year in which such deduction was allowed for the first time. Since, the Auditors had reported that initial assessment year of allowance of deduction U/s 80IB to be 1995-96, the A.O. was of the view that deduction U/s 801B could be allowed

ACIT, CIR-47, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE RAM SAW MILL, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 374/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 80I

disallowed to the assessee-firm. In view of the above discussions the AO did not find the assessee-firm was eligible for getting the deduction of Rs. 79,35,252/- under Section 80-IB of the Act as claimed in the Return. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case

D.C.I.T CIR - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1105/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(1)Section 80I

801B has already been decided by various Courts, no addition in this matter is called for. “ 17. We find that the various Hon’ble High Courts held that scrap generated in the manufacturing activity is eligible for deduction and respectfully following the same, we hold that the Assessee is entitled to claim deduction under the provisions of the section 80IB

AMRIT FEEDS LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

801B of the Act and in that view of the matter thee AO's action of not making reference to TPO under 92C could not be held by the CIT to be erroneous. 7) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT failed to appreciate that the transactions of the appellant with the parties