ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MANOJ KR. JAIN & SONS (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

IV -versus- Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AAIHM9669P) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee Shri Amit Kumar, ACA For the Department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER PER Bench ITA Nos.1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 are appeals by the assessee against the six orders all dated 16.6.2011 of CIT(A)-Central

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

IV -versus- Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AAIHM9669P) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee Shri Amit Kumar, ACA For the Department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER PER Bench ITA Nos.1238 to 1243/Kol/2011 are appeals by the assessee against the six orders all dated 16.6.2011 of CIT(A)-Central

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

SRI BHASKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

iv) The case of the assesse is fully covered by the clause (i) below Explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 hence, the assessee in respect of year wise income has been deduced from the transactions of undisclosed bank account no.086104000105095 of IDBI Bank Ltd, Gariahat, Kolkata may be deemed to have concealed the particulars

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

iv)Ahemdabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT |1993) 199 ITR 351 (Bom.); (v)Inaroo Ltd. v CIT [1993] 204 ITR 312 (Bom.); 2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited (vi)Ashok Vardhan Birla v CWT [19941 208 ITR 958 (Bom.); (vii) CIT v Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 626 (Bom.). 4. The contention of the assessee

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

iv) ITAT Delhi in the case of Sri Vardhman Overseas Ltd 24 SOT 393 (Del.) held as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 2002- 7 A.Y 2011-12 M/s. Green Star Corporation 03 - During relevant assessment year, Assessing Officer asked assessee- company to prove genuineness of certain sundry creditors - Assessee could not file

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

U/s 139(1) Ler.Dt 153A 153A (Rs.) 20/10/06 (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,59,126/- 1,91,154/- ------ 8,50,280/- 2003-04 8,57,623/- 2,35,877/- 3,61,600/- 14,55,100/- 2004-05 8,52,094/- 4,09,356/- 14,65,904/- 22,27,350/- 2005-06 10,50,831/0-

SUBRATA MOITRA,DURGAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

iv) Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Jayashree Jayakar Mohanka reported in 291 Taxmann 273 (Cal) Apart from the above cited judicial pronouncement the Ld. Counsel has cited a recent decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in the case of KPC Medical College and Hospital vs. PCIT in RVWO/35/2016

M/S FLOW & FLUID CONTROL CENTRE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-34(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35,500/-. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, thereafter case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the ld AO passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2012 determining taxable income at Rs. 17,30,160/-. The ld AO thereafter issued notice to the assessee on 21.12.2012 calling for explanation

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return.” Page 3 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. 4. The total income was accordingly assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act at Rs. 3,98,75,551/-. Aggrieved with the assessment

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

35,090.59 and profit from sale of a property at Delhi to the tune of Rs. 16,24,800/-. It was further seen that an excess of Rs. 1,12,129/- & Rs. 3,19,176/- were debited to the earlier income & expenditure account towards bank interest and expense on repairs and maintenance. Due to revision the depreciation was increased

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 41(1

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 41(1

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 41(1

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 41(1

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 41(1

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 41(1

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 41(1