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

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(5

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

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

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

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

80A(5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical ITA No.292/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2011-12 ITO Wd-8(2), Kol. Vs M/s Wizard Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.. Page 7 error, the claim

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

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

80A(5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee

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

80A(5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee

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

80A(5) of the Act, the assessee otherwise was required to make such claim in the return of income. He, however, held that otherwise there was no dispute relating to the eligibility of the assessee to claim such deduction. He also held that the computation of deduction by simply adding of 15% mark-up to the cost of producing

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)

80A(5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee

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

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

80A(5) of the Act, the\nassessee otherwise was required to make such claim in the return of\nincome. He, however, held that otherwise there was no dispute relating\nto the eligibility of the assessee to claim such deduction. He also held\nthat the computation of deduction by simply adding of 15% mark-up to\nthe cost of producing

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. 5

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]

5,32,08,852 TP Adjustment (Restricted to the extent of GTI) Assessed Income NIL NIL NIL 29. The Ld. DRP however did not agree with the above contention of the assessee and held that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO is distinct from claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. According

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

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

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