EAST INDIA BUSINESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

order : November 17, 2017 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of CIT (Appeals) – 16, Kolkata dated 04.08.2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:

1. Order bad in law and on facts 1.1 That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) under section 250 of the IT Act is bad in law and on facts.

2. Disclosure of higher income in revised return 2.1 That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the contention of the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) that disclosure of higher income of Rs. 37,65,827/- (before adjustment of brought forward losses) in the revised return filed by the company as against the original return resulted in concealment of income. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider that the total income disclosed in both the original and revised return was Nil after adjustment of brought forward losses.

3. Expenses incurred towards property service charges East India Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. for expenses incurred towards property service charges covered by the ‘Agreement for Extra Facilities’ amounting to Rs. 58,81,352/-.

4. Expenses incurred towards generator charge 4.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. for expenditure incurred towards Generator Charges amounting to Rs. 4,54,413/- on an adhoc basis.

5. Cost allocation from group companies 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. for expenditure of RS. 28,01,696/- which was incurred by the company towards inter group services received by the company under the cost allocation agreement. 5.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 19,30,103 made by the company u/s 40(A) of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS while confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. for entire expenses towards inter group services.

2. We have heard Mr. Subbiah Chidambaram, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. Biswanath Das, Ld. Addl. CIT on behalf of the Revenue. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of authorities below, we hold as follows.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) in this case has not passed speaking order. The assessee has made detailed submissions in this case, a copy of which is filed before us (pages 149 to 187 of the paper book). Copies of various documents and evidences that were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) also formed part of the paper book filed before us. The Ld. CIT (A) did consider in these detailed submissions or the documents filed.