TAJPUR S.K.U.S LTD.,MAHISHADAL, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. LD. DCIT , PRESTIGE ALPHA NO.48/1, 48/2 BERATENAAGRAHARA BEGUR, HOSUR ROAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148. On reading sections 80A

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A

KHANDRA COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BARDHAMAN vs. THE AO, CPC BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata............................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd.........…….....…..…..Respondent Hb-170, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Appearances By: Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.2543/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2008. In The Said Assessment, The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia(4) Of Rs.

disallowed the deduction u/s 80IA and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,50,47,540/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings has allowed the deduction more than that was claimed in the original return and after allowance of the said deduction, there will be loss of Rs.88,53755/-. That as per section 80A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata............................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd.........…….....…..…..Respondent Hb-170, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Appearances By: Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.2543/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2008. In The Said Assessment, The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia(4) Of Rs.

disallowed the deduction u/s 80IA and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,50,47,540/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings has allowed the deduction more than that was claimed in the original return and after allowance of the said deduction, there will be loss of Rs.88,53755/-. That as per section 80A

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. 18. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), though, observed that the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Reported in 284 ITR 323 to hold that since the said claim was not in the return of income hence

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\nu/s 2(22)(e) was made in those orders and the department had duly\naccepted the said transactions as financial transactions for the\nbenefit of both the company since they were in the nature of current\naccount and completely in commercial expediency. The assessee\ncompany emphasised on the stand of the department in the earlier\nyear on the said

KAMALPUR JOTEKANURAGARH S K U S LIMITED,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 38,, MIDNAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of income because of cash deposit into bank amounting to Rs.36,00,000/- during the period of demonetization. 4. That the Penalty Proceeding u/s. 270A of the Income Tax 1961, will not be initiated as there was no under reporting of Assessee’s Income as the accounts has been audited by Co-operative Auditor, Government of West Bengal