DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

3. Persistent System Limited (a) Functionally not comparable – Persistent systems is engaged in provision of outsourced product development services for independent software vendors and enterprises, which is different in nature from IT services. The company derives income from both software services & products. (b) Segmental information not available – P&L shows income from “sale of software services & Products. However, no break

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

3. Persistent System Limited (a) Functionally not comparable – Persistent systems is engaged in provision of outsourced product development services for independent software vendors and enterprises, which is different in nature from IT services. The company derives income from both software services & products. (b) Segmental information not available – P&L shows income from “sale of software services & Products. However, no break

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

TDS has been made by the assessee. Therefore, all the above mentioned amounts were required to have been added to total income u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act if no tax was deducted from payment to contractors/sub-contractors u/s 194C, the expenditure was not deductible from the earnings

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

189 TAXMANN 232 (Delhi) • CIT Vs Havells India Ltd 352 ITR 370 (Del) In these judicial precedents, it has been held that the payer is duty-bound to deduct TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Act unless the permission of deducting at a lower rate or non-deduction of tax is granted by the Assessing Officer

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

189 TAXMANN 232 (Delhi) • CIT Vs Havells India Ltd 352 ITR 370 (Del) In these judicial precedents, it has been held that the payer is duty-bound to deduct TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Act unless the permission of deducting at a lower rate or non-deduction of tax is granted by the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

3,23,897/- only. The assessee gets part relief. 23. The assessee’s next substantive ground challenges correctness of disallowance amounting to ₹150,046,130/- in respect of PWCDA network form charges. There is no dispute about the same to have been paid to its eponymous “Dutch” entity incorporated in Netherlands against invoices raised by PWCDA services in terms

M/S POWER MAX (INDIA ) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD),CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

189/- which are subject to the provisions of TDS. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee reconciled all the expenses on which the provisions of TDS were applicable except for a sum of ₹ 19,38,017/-. The assessee claimed that these payments were made to the parties which were did not cross the threshold limit of TDS, so these were

I.T.O.WARD-27(3), HALDIA vs. SHRI AZAZUL HAQUE, PUBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-27(3), Haldia Shri Azazul Haque, [Prop. Of M/S. Haque Transport], Vs. Vill. + Po – Naranda, Panskura, Dist. Purba Medinipur, 721139 Pan: Abaph9858E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Swati Baid, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 03.01.2019 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Ay 2010-11 Which In Turns Arise Out Of The Assessment Order Framed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act.

Section 32(1) of the Act. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on 4. record including the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to rectify the mistake which has resulted from denial of depreciation of Rs. 14,55,585/- to the assessee

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS was not applicable on drawing to UAE, Dubai and as such disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted, ignoring that payment of Rs.63,07,123/- to UAE (Dubai) was fees for technical service in nature on which tax was required to be deducted u/s 195, but not deducted and as such, provision of disallowance

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS was not applicable on drawing to UAE, Dubai and as such disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted, ignoring that payment of Rs.63,07,123/- to UAE (Dubai) was fees for technical service in nature on which tax was required to be deducted u/s 195, but not deducted and as such, provision of disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S APEEJAY TEA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1736/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle – 4(1) Kolkata...................................………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Apeejay Tea Ltd.....................…………………………..................................................Respondent ‘Apeejay House’, Block-A, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaeca 1925 D] Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 30.06.2016. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 31,64,411/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Balance Additional Depreciation.

189. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation of 10% as made in the year under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, besides various decisions of this

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Bidyut Bhawan, 9Th Floor, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacw 6952 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 29(4) of the Act also mandated that ERPC might, from time to time, agree on matters concerning the stability and smooth operation of the integrated grid and economy and efficiency in the operation of the power system in that region. It was further submitted that in accordance with ERPC (Conduct of Business rules, 2011) all members except