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

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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted. Not being satisfied with the order of the ld CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue read as follows :- “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the Ld. CIT(A) erred in declaring

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

801B(10) of the IT Act 1961 on this count.” 4. For the reasons given above, the AO disallowed the deduction of Rs.2,68,19,865/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) in the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 29.12.2011. 5. Against the order passed

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

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.

9. Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that methodology followed by the assessee as stated above, was considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the assessee's case for preceding years holding it to be reasonable and scientific, orders of which are placed on record in the paper books. Details of the preceding years

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

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.

9. Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that methodology followed by the assessee as stated above, was considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the assessee's case for preceding years holding it to be reasonable and scientific, orders of which are placed on record in the paper books. Details of the preceding years

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

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) &

9,38,54,750/-. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 12. Second ground of revenue’s appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). 12.1 Briefly stated, facts for this issue are that during the year assessee earned dividend income

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

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) &

9,38,54,750/-. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 12. Second ground of revenue’s appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). 12.1 Briefly stated, facts for this issue are that during the year assessee earned dividend income

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

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) &

9,38,54,750/-. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 12. Second ground of revenue’s appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). 12.1 Briefly stated, facts for this issue are that during the year assessee earned dividend income

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

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) &

9,38,54,750/-. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 12. Second ground of revenue’s appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance made u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). 12.1 Briefly stated, facts for this issue are that during the year assessee earned dividend income

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

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

9 of the said report they had mentioned that 1995-96 was the initial assessment year from when deduction U/s 80IB in respect of Unit - III was being claimed by the Assesseet. The AO was of the view that under Sub-section (4) of section 80IB of the Act read with first proviso thereof, deduction under that section shall

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

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

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

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

AMRICON AGROVET PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

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

AMRICON AGROVET PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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]

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

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

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

801B, 801, 80lA of the Act with reference to export incentives on the ground that the source of such receipts was the relevant Government Schemes for promoting exports which per se did not have direct nexus with the operation of the industrial undertaking. The AO also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sterling

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

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

801B, 801, 80lA of the Act with reference to export incentives on the ground that the source of such receipts was the relevant Government Schemes for promoting exports which per se did not have direct nexus with the operation of the industrial undertaking. The AO also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sterling

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

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

801B, 801, 80lA of the Act with reference to export incentives on the ground that the source of such receipts was the relevant Government Schemes for promoting exports which per se did not have direct nexus with the operation of the industrial undertaking. The AO also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sterling