PRASANTA KARMAKAR,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.258/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Prasanta Karmakar Vs. Jcit, Range-26, Kolkata R-26, Kol, Aykar Bhawan, 41, Bose Para Road, Barisha, Dakshin, Dhakuria, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 008. 700 068. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Agapk 0496 Q (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Monoj Dutta, Fca, S.K. Roy, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.359/Cit(A)-7/Range- 26/14-15, Dated 28.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.144/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.03.2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That The Ld. Cit(A) Totally Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- U/S.40(A)(Ia)/194H Which Was Not The Issue In The Original Asst. Order Wherein The A.O. Made The Total Disallowance As Bogus Commission Payment & Rejected Books U/S.145(3) & Such Addition Has To Be Deleted Being Totally Injudicious & Out Of Context Especially When The Cit(A) Himself Has Admitted That Commission Payment Is Genuine & Is Required To Be Allowed. 2.That The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- Is Totally Bad & Uncalled For In View Of The Findings In The Asst. Order Dt. 20.01.2016 Of The Assessee U/S. 143(3) For The Asst. Year 2013-2014 & Hence Cannot Be Sustained. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Retailer'S Commission Is Determined & Communicated By The Principal Ttsl Through E-Mail Every Month

184/- is totally bad and uncalled for in view of the findings in the Asst. order dt. 20.01.2016 of the assessee u/s. 143(3) for the Asst. year 2013-2014 and hence cannot be sustained. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the retailer's commission is determined and communicated by the Principal TTSL through e-mail

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

184 (AAR) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCJT (2009) 313 ITR 263 (IT A T Mumbai -SB)] Worley Parsons Services (P) Ltd., In re (2009) 313 ITR 74 (AAR) ACJT vs Viceroy Hotels Ltd.(20 12) 18 ITR(T) 282 (ITAT Hyd) R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited (2011) 335 ITR 122 (AAR) ADIT v. WNS Global Service Private

HARBHAJAN SINGH,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

184/- The AO observed that interest expense has been claimed by assessee without deducting TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and he accordingly disallowed the same and added back to the total income of assessee. 10. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who gave relief to assessee in part by observing as under:- “6. In this ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

184 Profit& Loss A/c material Import of spares, 3,84,57,470 15,35,31,089 tools and capital equipment Payment of service 5,05,74,785 charges­ for IT services, sales support, marketing & advertisement and sorting services Payment for 79,34,650 technical know­how (Royalty) Income side of Sale of tools 13,04,115 Profit& Loss A/c Export

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

5) of the Companies Act is untenable, since under Income Tax law, the burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate claims, particularly where such claims result in reduction of taxable capital gains. Further, the appellant's argument that the Department has accepted such costs in earlier years' scrutiny assessments does not create res judicata in income-tax proceedings

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

TDS provisions. The levy of\ninterest under Sections 234B and 234C is valid as it is mandatory for default in\nadvance tax payment. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section\n271(1)(c) is justified due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the claimed\nexpenses. The appeal is dismissed in full.”\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

184/- as on 31.03.2005 out of which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was invested to acquire equity shares of the assessee company. The AO just presumed that share applicant Anita Mookin does not have source of income but we find that the immediate source of investment is clearly reflected in the Balance Sheet of the shareholder which is very

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

184/- as on 31.03.2005 out of which a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was invested to acquire equity shares of the assessee company. The AO just presumed that share applicant Anita Mookin does not have source of income but we find that the immediate source of investment is clearly reflected in the Balance Sheet of the shareholder which is very

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/

TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Ld. A.O was unjustified in taking a view that the business of the assessee had not commenced, when he himself has recorded about the agreement entered by the appellant with

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5,41,897/- disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. TDS; (ii) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 80G of the Act towards donation, and (iii) disallowance of claim of deduction

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

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SUBHASISH ACHARYYA, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 40A(3). “ 1 ITA No.1050 & CO No.75/K/2013-B-AM Subhasish Acharyya 3. In the C.O ( No.75/K/2013 arising out of ITA No. 1050/K/2013 A.Y 2008-09), the assessee has raised the following ground:- 1) For that on the facts of the case the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in estimating the net Profit from Contract business @ 8% of Gross Receipts

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 14A r.w.r. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer is not warranted. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 4.4.In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue (in Ground No.2) is dismissed. 5.Ground No.3 raised

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

Section G of the study on search criteria is to be seen. The asses se chooses NACE Codes (NACE (Nomenclature of Economic Activities) is the European statistical classification of economic activities. NACE groups organizations according to their business activities. Statistics produced on the basis of NACE are comparable at European level and, in general, at world level in line with

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2600/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Philips India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 378 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book. He also referred to the exclusion of 12000000 Euros towards the Shareholder function costs

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

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

TDS Certificate is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure - 7. For ready reference. This clearly indicates that loan/advance received from Switz Foods is backed by commercial consideration and is not gratuitous in nature. 6.0 The appellant would like to draw attention that part of the loan granted by Switz Foods is adjusted against the dues which it owes

GARGI GANGULY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

TDS effected. In the case of 184 ITR 308, case of Union of India & Ors Vs Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd, it has been held that in dealings Involving fund transfers between known close parties, these are to be looked into with care and caution and necessary Inferences draw if there any abnormalities attached with such transactions. The case at hand