M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

TDS-3 Vs M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd [ ITA No. 63/Mum/09]. I however find the submissions of the ld. AR to be untenable in the context of the amendments brought in Section 9(1)(vii

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

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, the source of income, and not the receipt, should be situated outside India. 5.3 Recollecting from the impugned order, it is observed that there are no doubts regarding the fact that the agents to whom the appellant paid commission, but without TDS

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

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, the source of income, and not the receipt, should be situated outside India. 5.3 Recollecting from the impugned order, it is observed that there are no doubts regarding the fact that the agents to whom the appellant paid commission, but without TDS

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and therefore TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue

DCIT, CIR.-8(2), KOLKATA vs. NISSIN ABC LOGISTICS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Garg

9(1 (i) of the Act, and as such, not liable to tax in India, and consequently not liable for tax withholding in India". No TDS liability on payments to foreign shipping companies/agents of the foreign Shipping companies/ agents of non-resident companies engaged in operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic. Article 8 of the India-Japan Double

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NISSIN ABC LOGISTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 9(1)(vii). Since the income cannot be described as deemed to accrue or arise in India and there is no doubt about such income having not 10 Nisasin ABC Logistic Pvt. Ltd, AY- 2010-11 been received or deemed to be received or accruing or arising in India, the taxability of such income fails. Therefore, the impugned order

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, 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:

vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the remittances would not be taxable as Royalty / FTS under the Act. Further since all the operations of Payee are carried out outside India, in accordance with clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the proposed remittance should not be deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly

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:

vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the remittances would not be taxable as Royalty / FTS under the Act. Further since all the operations of Payee are carried out outside India, in accordance with clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the proposed remittance should not be deemed to accrue or arise in India and accordingly

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. 6.8. Marketing & Development Payments are made to the tax residents of USA / Mauritius. While USA has ‘make available’ clause in the ‘Included Services Article’ , Mauritius does not have any exclusive FTS clause. In view of the above, no tax withholding is called for. 6.9. Apart from this, the assessee had given an exclusive submission before the ld AO vide

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

vii) of the Act. The payment of Commission to non-resident agents does not fall in any of the three clauses of section 9(1) of the Act. 12 M/s. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 10.2. It is well settled that the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act are very clear that the income

ITO, WD-(IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EMAMI PAPER MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.642/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2012-2013) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd., (International Taxation), 687, Anandapur, E.M.Bypass, Ward, Kolkata, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700107 Room No. 215 Aayakar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipalli,Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 1428 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri N.B.Som, Jcit Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, In Appeal No.111/Cit(A)-22/Kol/14-13, Dated 20.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 201(1)/1A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company, M/S.Emami Paper Mills Limited, Hereafter Called As ‘Deductor’ Has Remitted Some Amount To A Non-Resident Company Of Poland Without Deducting Taxes. Show Cause Notice U/S 201 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Issued To The Deductor. In Response, The Deductor Company Submitted M/S Emami Paper Mills Ltd.

TDS was required to be deducted. The Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly considered dismantling as “like projects” as provided in Explanation (2) to section 9(1)(vii

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

TDS certificates issued to the Indian agents are enclosed in the Paper book in support of the aforesaid submissions made by the assessee. 1. 6. It would be apposite to refer to relevant sections 9(1((i), 9( 1 )(vii

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ERSHISANYE CONSTRUCTION GROUP (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir-11(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Ershisanye Construction Group (I) Ltd. Pan:Aacce0687Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)i.e. the same was not “fees for technical services” but towards compensation for contract of construction. Therefore, considering this factual position explained above, we note that assessee is not M/s. Erhisanye Construction Group (I) Ltd 6 liable to deduct TDS

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9;\n(iii) “professional services” shall have the same mean-ing as in clause (a) of\nthe Explanation to section 194J;\n(iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III* to section\n194C;\n[(v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation\nto section

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORGANON (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

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

9 (1) (vii) of the Act. 42. At one stage of the proceedings, the Assessee sought to contend that the payment was FIS covered under Article 12 (4) of the DTAA. The ITAT did not address this issue. It addressed the question whether, even assuming it was FIS, Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act cannot be applied and consequently

ORGANON (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

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

9 (1) (vii) of the Act. 42. At one stage of the proceedings, the Assessee sought to contend that the payment was FIS covered under Article 12 (4) of the DTAA. The ITAT did not address this issue. It addressed the question whether, even assuming it was FIS, Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act cannot be applied and consequently

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

vii) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Jashojit Mukherjee 93 Taxmann.com 366 held as under: I. Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission and cessation of trading liability (Cessation of liability) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee had shown provision for sundry creditors -Assessing Officer held that since present whereabouts of creditors were not known to assessee