M/S. ARADHANA INVESTMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

business, the same principle should be followed in the succeeding years. However, 3 I.T.A. No. 728/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Aradhana Investment Limited in the case under appeal, the AIR of the appellant had not adduce any evidence that interest income earned from fixed deposits and interest on TDS

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income and short term capital gains / long term capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income and short term capital gains / long term capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income and short term capital gains / long term capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income and short term capital gains / long term capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

business only. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue in both the years, of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 20. The next issue in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.581/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

business only. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue in both the years, of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 20. The next issue in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.581/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

business only. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue in both the years, of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 20. The next issue in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.581/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

business only. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue in both the years, of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 20. The next issue in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.581/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

TDS Date of Nature of No. Recipient amount amou remittance payment (Rs.) nt 1. PRIME GROUP 1042448 UAE 0 13/04/2010 Commission ASSOCIATES 5568326 0 23/07/2010 10832518 0 22/06/2010 1276770 0 12/10/2010 4316014 0 21/09/2010 4920574 0 30/11/2010 5218172 0 18/01/2011 4910549 0 22/02/2011 1875582 0 11/03/2011 1728223 0 25/03/2011 2. MR.EDWARD 64534 Malta 0 08/10/2010 Commission ZAMMIT 319252 0 25/01/2011

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)

TDS thereon). • During the year under consideration, the Bank has made payments to the employees amounting to Rs 4.09 crore towards such unfunded pension liability. the payment has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the Bank, the same has been claimed as deduction by the Bank under Section

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)

TDS thereon). • During the year under consideration, the Bank has made payments to the employees amounting to Rs 4.09 crore towards such unfunded pension liability. the payment has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the Bank, the same has been claimed as deduction by the Bank under Section

ITO, WARD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BADAL KRISHNA SAHA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-53(4), -Versus- Sri Badal Krishna Saha, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Ajeps 3580 N) For The Appellant : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Jcit For The Respondent : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2015. Order

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Shri.Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, the Learned DR argued on behalf of the revenue. Shri.K.M.Roy, FCA, the Learned AR argued on behalf of the assessee. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is that whether the Learned CITA is justified in applying lower estimated rate of net profit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business. We find a substantial force in this argument. Sri Tulsiyan, the learned counsel for the assessee has also repeatedly hammered on this point. We find that the assessment is finalised under section 143(3) i.e., after scrutiny of the books of account and other documents. In spite of that this important aspect of margin & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

business. We find a substantial force in this argument. Sri Tulsiyan, the learned counsel for the assessee has also repeatedly hammered on this point. We find that the assessment is finalised under section 143(3) i.e., after scrutiny of the books of account and other documents. In spite of that this important aspect of margin & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda

METSO OYJ,FINLAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business income of the Appellant is not taxable in India in the absence of permanent establishment of the Appellant in India under Article 5 read with Article 7 of the DTAA. 4. Levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act 4.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in levying

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

business income and there was no scope of deduction under the head of house property u/s 24 of the Act, and accordingly he disallowed the same. The Ld. A.O made further from heads of 'Preparation of Site plan' of Rs.10,000/­, 'Registration of Lease Deed' of Rs.30,500/­, 'Interest on TDS

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

business activity or not incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the Wakf or that the assessee should have maintained separate books of account in respect thereof or was hit by section 11(4A) of the Act and therefore benefit U/S II is not applicable to the assessee, without considering the fact that mehmansari was a property held

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

business income and since in earlier years and subsequent years this claim was not disa years and subsequent years this claim was not disallowed and for the first time this llowed and for the first time this disallowance is made, so by applying the Rule of consistency, the disallowance was not disallowance is made, so by applying the Rule