D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

135 TTJ 239 (Mum ITAT) wherein on an identical claim such as the one made by the Assessee in the present case, the concept of 'derived from' was explained as hereunder: "9.On going through the principle laid down in above judicial pronouncements, it is manifest that the expression "derived from" is constricted in its ambit when considered in juxtaposition

D.C.I.T CIR - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Ita No. 1469 & 1470/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……………….………....…........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co. Ltd..................……………….…..Respondent 3, Esplanade East Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aabct 3043 L] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Subrata Dey, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 5Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

TDS @ 1% was deducted on the payments and hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act hence Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase is not applicable. In case of payments to NG Gosai Printing Pvt. Ltd., as it was purchase

RUNGTA MINES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 need to be allowed as deduction. Therefore, the ‘CSR’ expenditure which the assessee company was obliged to discharge because it was a statutory obligation upon the assessee company so, the deduction should have been allowed as per the law in force for this assessment year and we direct the AO to allow the expenditure

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

TDS), Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant company for the payment made to M/s. Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd is a revenue expenditure. 5.1.15. Now, the issue remaining for consideration is whether the expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

TDS on payments made to National Neuroscience Centre. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 04-03-2014 enhanced the disallowance to Rs. 1,70,28,307/-, thus an additional sum of Rs.44,44,625/- (Rs.1

ALOK ARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(4), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

135 to Rs. 1,34,82,460/-, which is more than 100%\nincrease against the marginal increase of 0.23% in the turnover.\nAccordingly, the assessee was called upon to explain the same. The\nassessee furnished the list of parties to whom such commission was\npaid after deduction of tax at source. The assessee submitted before\nthe Id. AO that assessee

M/S. VICTOR COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced in ITA No. 1126/Kol/2024 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 are as under: 1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in passing

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

135 (Bom), wherein the head note:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Interest on borrowed capital – Assessee-company was engaged in business of generation of power – It had made investments in its sister concern from January, 2000 to March, 2000 – Assessing Officer was of view that sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

135 (Bom), wherein the head note:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Interest on borrowed capital – Assessee-company was engaged in business of generation of power – It had made investments in its sister concern from January, 2000 to March, 2000 – Assessing Officer was of view that sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of assessee

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

135 (Bom), wherein the head note:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Interest on borrowed capital – Assessee-company was engaged in business of generation of power – It had made investments in its sister concern from January, 2000 to March, 2000 – Assessing Officer was of view that sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

135 (Bom), wherein the head note:- Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Interest on borrowed capital – Assessee-company was engaged in business of generation of power – It had made investments in its sister concern from January, 2000 to March, 2000 – Assessing Officer was of view that sum of Rs.213 crores was invested out of assessee

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS deduction, and the lender's response under\nSection 133(6).\nHon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test in the CIT v\nKelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 561, whether the A.O had tangible\nmaterial to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of\nincome from assessment. The Supreme Court has held that the\n'reason

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Moreover since the overseas entity has PE in form of its agent (appellant), such income would be taxable in India even after taking into account the beneficial provisions of various DTAAs signed by India with various countries. It may be mentioned that all the DTAAs have a provision that business

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS 2. List of the parties to whom the commission was paid with PAN and their business expertise 3. The services rendered by the commission agents along with the details of sales against which the commission was paid. 4. Details of the nexus between the commission and the business of the assessee. ITA No.206-207/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arsh

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

TDS on commission for non- whole time directors arises at the end of the financial year. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 8 2 (a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that provision for leave