DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

TDS officer to look into the alleged violations, if any, on the same and the ld AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported in 253

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]

253(2) of the Act. No leave was obtained to urge the ground in regard to the status as regards the liability to tax. The Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the findings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee was a separate entity and the assessment made in the case of the assessee should be treated

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

2) Shri Amit Kumar - Rs.8,32,343/- 3) Shri Rajiv Kumar- Rs. 4,16,137/- However, the above notices were returned unserved by the postal authority and accordingly AO made addition. We note that for marketing and selling the insurance products, the company has to perform various activities which include Lead Generation Activities, Direct Mailers Distributions, Road Shows and Customer

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS officer to look into the alleged violations, if any, on the same and the Learned AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported in 253

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

253/- under Rule 8D (2) (ii). For addition of Rs. 1,90,049/- under Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, we direct the assessing officer to compute the disallowance @0.5% only taking into account the investments which yield dividend income, during the previous year, as per the discussion made in the case of REI Agro

DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

2 cr. to GTFS from August, 2008 to Marc, 2009. Even for making available necessary services of infrastructure, the assessee was under obligation to make payment to GTFS amounting to Rs.2 cr. from the Agency company for the same period. In term of the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there is no element of insurance commission

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)

2) inserted by the Parliament u/s. 263 cannot override the main section i.e. sec. 263(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT can exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the event the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as discussed above and not otherwise. 16. In the instant case we find that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO. The factual matrix involving the dispute is in narrow compass. The appellant had taken on lease land at Taratala belonging to Kolkata Port Trust

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO. The factual matrix involving the dispute is in narrow compass. The appellant had taken on lease land at Taratala belonging to Kolkata Port Trust

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO. The factual matrix involving the dispute is in narrow compass. The appellant had taken on lease land at Taratala belonging to Kolkata Port Trust

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Act could not 13 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 be made applicable in the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to the prayer of the Learned

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

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

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Act could not 13 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 be made applicable in the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to the prayer of the Learned

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

TDS obligations. For the sake of convenience, the said Explanation is reproduced herein below:- Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and shall

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 144C sets out the procedure to be Provisions of subsection 6, 7, 8 and 9 of section 144C sets out the procedure to be Provisions of subsection 6, 7, 8 and 9 of section 144C sets out the procedure to be followed by the dispute resolution panel in followed by the dispute resolution panel in issue of the direction

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2,60,15,928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2,60,15,928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions