COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253 of the Act 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

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253 of the Act 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

COMANTRA E-SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(CPC), TDS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253 of the Act 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

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]

5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

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]

5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

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]

5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

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]

5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 143(3) proceedings for which he placed a copy of the assessment order dated 28.12.2006. copy of the assessment order dated 28.12.2006. 4.5. We have heard the rival 4.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, record

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]

5 M/s. Height Insurance Services Ltd. AY 2009-10 Rs. 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

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)

TDS credit to the tune of Rs.60,004/- on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year. 3. Now, we shall take first grievance of the assessee, which relatesto disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D to the tune of Rs.3

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

NARESH ANCHALIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 253(6) and he is supposed to pay only 500/- rupees, which has already been paid. This explanation of the assessee did not meet the approval of the Registry and hence along with this objection, the appeal is listed before us. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

TDS to ensure that there is no leakage of revenue on account of non-deduction of\ntaxes at source u/s 194IC of the Act, on payment of Rs. 57.5 crores to M/s Orbit\nCorporation for the Joka Project when such action has been taken in the interest\nsafeguarding the interest of revenue\n8. Whether in the facts and circumstances

DDIT(IT)-1(1)KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S JOY PARTNERSHIP, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 149/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ddit(It)-1(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Joy Partnership [Pan: Aadfj 6427 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

253,600 Return Add: Roofbolting labour charges not required to be reflected to be shown in TDS 3,053,003 Return Add: Difference due to exchange fluctuation 5,528,804 Add: Overseas insurance premium of the expartriate employees 1,824,080 Add: Debit to P&L A/c due to grossing up 4,500,717 Add: Visa, passport, travelling etc. charges

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)

5,31,58,032–1,72,05,088) should be disallowed. Accordingly, AO disallowed Rs.3,59,52,944/-. 21. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the AO, the assesse carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 22. The ld. DR for the Revenue

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253(5), the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 4.0 Further, it is humbly submitted that the provision limiting the time for filing the appeal

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

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

5. From the foregoing clauses, it is evident that in addition to making payment of Euro 3.5 million, GD had represented that it had ceased to use TIGER logo which was the subject of IP dispute. GO had also agreed that It would not use BIL's TIGER logo anywhere In the world thereafter. In the circumstances I find that