M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty u/s 271

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

234D of the Act. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Aa has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

234D of the Act. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, the Assessing Officer erred in granting short credit of interest under section 244A of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Aa has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271

ABN AMRO BANK N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 41(1), it is deemed to be the bu9 profits of the current year, it automatically would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the following decisions, in the context of section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section

FOSTER WHEELER BENGAL PVT. LTD., (MERGED WITH AMEE FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 41/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Foster Wheeler Bengal Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata (Merged With Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcf 2267 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.09.2016 by the Ld. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata (in short ‘the ld. AO’) pursuant to the directions issued by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘ld. DRP’) u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 17.08.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Ground

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, II-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, dt. 30/01/2017, has determined that “assessee company should have earned a profit Rs.5,92,36,331/-, instead of –Nil- return filed by the assessee. The DRP, partly upheld the order of the TPO. The Assessing Officer passed this final assessment order, in accordance with the directions of the DRP determining the total income

DCIT, (IT), CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 196/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….………………………………………………………….……..Appellant Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1), Kolkata…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 I.T.A. No. 295/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(1),Kolkata……….Appellant 110 Shanti Pally Kolkata – 700 107 Dongfang Electric Corporation.….…….……………………………………………………………….Respondent Dongfang Electric Corporation Kolkata Project Office Ck-189 & Ck-141 Sector-Ii Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan : Aaccd 0559 L] Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 09Th, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153(1) & 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Filed A Cross-Appeal, Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’).

u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, dt. 30/01/2017, has determined that “assessee company should have earned a profit Rs.5,92,36,331/-, instead of –Nil- return filed by the assessee. The DRP, partly upheld the order of the TPO. The Assessing Officer passed this final assessment order, in accordance with the directions of the DRP determining the total income

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

234D of the Act 13. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the appellant was employed with the IBM India Pvt. Ltd. during

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively through calculation Sheet and demand notice without passing a specific order in this regard. 6. That the Ld. AO was wrong in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

234D at Rs.1,32,706/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such interests were at all chargeable. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, change and/or modify