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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

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

40A(7) of IT Act unless the gratuity fund is approved. It is an admitted fact that the grauit9y fund of appellant is not approved and therefore appellant cannot claimed in respect of contribution to this fund. A proper contribution can be made only after the approval.” Further, aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has come

MS. LEELA MONDAL,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

40A(7) of the Act. The assessee however file to add back the sum in its computation of income. Moreover it was not even noticed by the assessing Officer who framed the original assessment order. In these circumstances the Supreme court held that the contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing

M/S RISHI F. L. ON SHOP,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

40A(3) of the I.T Act. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances the ld. CIT(Appeal) is justified by confirming the penalty U/s. 271(1)( c) without considering the merit of the case. 3. Thereafter, the assessee filed the following additional ground:- For that the AO who adopted jurisdiction u/s. 274/271 and issued notice u/s. 271

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]

40A(3) of the Act. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 33,04,612/- (1623,931 + 16,80,681) and a impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act of Rs. 10,21,124/-. 4. Aggrieved

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

b)". 1.2 The assessee has filed a written contention opposing the view taken to treat the loan/ advance of Rs. 1,25,02,162/- (form Switz Foods Pvt Ltd) as Deemed dividend and cited various case laws of different high courts. It was also reiterated that Arnab Basu was no more beneficial owner in the assessee company due to less

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

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

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

40A(a)(i) of the Act. We treat the former assessment year 2011-12 as the “lead” assessment year containing the CIT(A)’s following detailed discussion on the issue. “5. I have considered the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the submission of the AR on this point along with the case laws relied upon

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

2. The plea of the assessee that the claim for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act was a bonafide mistake made by the assessee has to be accepted. There is no material on record to show that the claim was not made under bonafide mistake. We find that the case laws as relied on by the ld.DR were

BINOD KUMAR BURNWAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [Pan : Aizpb 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent

B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binod Kumar Burnwal…………………….…….............................………………………..……….………..Appellant Prop: Anandlok Infocom Bangram, Nutandanga Gogla Dist-Burdwan – 713 383 [PAN : AIZPB 0692 A] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Kolkata......................................................……………….…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Robin

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(1) of the part B of the Fourth Schedule. The bank has been regularly contributing to the fund for the base pension, based on actuarial valuation and have been claiming a deduction of the same on payment basis under Section 36(1)(iv) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act. • Apart from the approved superannuation fund, to compensate

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(1) of the part B of the Fourth Schedule. The bank has been regularly contributing to the fund for the base pension, based on actuarial valuation and have been claiming a deduction of the same on payment basis under Section 36(1)(iv) read with Section 43B(b) of the Act. • Apart from the approved superannuation fund, to compensate