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(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MACKINTOSH BURN LTD,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

80A and 80AC of the Act allowed the claim of deduction of the assessee by holding that in order to claim such deduction; (a) the return of income has to be furnished within the due date of furnishing the return as specified in section 139(1) of the Act; (b) the accounts of the undertaking have to be audited

RATULIA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITI LTD.,EAST MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

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(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

ITO, WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the assessee had not claimed the same

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the assessee had not claimed the same

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the assessee had not claimed the same

LIMTEX INFOTECH LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1368/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Limtex Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-7(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabcl 0088 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) and Sub-section(8) Sub-section(8) The return should be accompanied by a r.w FORM No.56F r.w FORM No.56G report of the Chartered Accountant 17. We find that the assessee is also entitled for benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, though the assessee had not claimed the same

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1416/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Industrial Investment Bank Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata, Of India Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 19, Netaji Subhas Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 0324 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya,Fca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.K.Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.343/08-09/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-6/Kol, Dated 29.04.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.11.2006. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Bank & Its Operations Are Solely In The Segment Of Non-Banking Financial Intermediation Services. The Assessee Being A Financial Institution, Its Activities Are Subject To Guidelines Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India For Banking Companies. During The Financial Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Company Written Off A Sum Of Rs.1,42,48,266/- On Account Of Debts As Irrecoverable. The Assessee Is An Organization To Which The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Viia) Is Applicable.

80A to 80VV (now deleted). The Chapter VI-A comes after section 72 relating to set off or brought forward business losses. In other words, total income is arrived at after reducing deduction under Chapter VI-A from gross total income which is worked out after considering set off of brought forward business losses. Therefore, the term 'total income' refers

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10). As per the amendment effected by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004; which came into force from A. Y.2005-06; an eligible housing project could not contain commercial area of more than 2000 sq.ft. According to AO; appellant's housing project contained "Utsa Centre" which had commercial area of 5000 sq.ft and this was more than

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

80A(2), the deduction permissible under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed the gross total income, which in the present case was NIL. Hence, when no deduction for Rs.19,03,49,419/- has been claimed u/s 80-IA(4)(ii) of the Act, then even if, any transfer pricing adjustment is made to the transactions of the eligible unit referred

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

1. The assessee company also submitted assessment orders of various previous AY's wherein assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was duly completed. The assessee submitted that similar financial transactions were undertaken by the assessee company with its subsidiary company and all the relevant documents were duly submitted before the AO. Furthermore, no such disallowance

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

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

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

1 Ranchi ITA No 61/Ran/2018 dated 16-09-2020 and others\nreferences: It was decided that where a company meets its business\nexigencies of fund requirements by borrowing from its group\nconcerns, such transaction cannot attract provisions of deemed\ndividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n1. The assessee company also submitted assessment orders

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 ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee by way of provision for leave encashment while arriving at the eligible provision of section 10A and 10AA units. It cannot therefore be said that there was any failure on the part of the AO for proper or adequate enquiries to claim deduction u/s 10A and 10AA before completing the assessment

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T.Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

section 80A(6). AY: 2010-11 Kesoram Industries Ltd. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in earlier years

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T.Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

section 80A(6). AY: 2010-11 Kesoram Industries Ltd. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in earlier years