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:

capital gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain of Rs 7,18,74,000/- in the facts of the case. The ld AO is accordingly directed to give benefit of the same to the assessee based on the correctness of the claim of brought forward loss figure made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 5.1 & 5.2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

establishments of the other entity abroad, both ways. Going further through ITA No.ITA No.2079/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. ITO(IT) Wd-1(1), Kol. Page 45 the terms & conditions of various agreements, the following salient features can be culled out :- (a) There is reciprocal appointment of agents by the appellant company and the overseas entities

M/S TRANS GLOBAL PLC( EARLY KNOWN AS MORAN HOLDINGS PLC),KOLKATA vs. D,I,T (IT) 3(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

capital gains. The assessee clearly accepted that the provisions of section 28(v)(a) of the Act will apply to this non-compete premium being business income but that will be taxed in UK being assessee a non-resident British Company having no permanent establishment

ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANIMAYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

gain has to be accepted as correct and calls for no interference. 12. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss gr.no.1 raised by the Revenue. 13. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue reads as follows :- “2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TAPAN KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

capital gain ( STCG) and interest of NRO & NRE account as per the provisions of Indian Income Tax Act and did not allow the benefit of DTAA. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had raised new ground, first time before the CIT(A), stating that

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India in terms of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ('DTAA'); II. Without prejudice to the Ground No.l, the Appellant states and submits that the authorities below erred in holding that, the entire amount received by the Appellant, including those in United States Dollar ('USD'), was attributable

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India in terms of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ('DTAA'); II. Without prejudice to the Ground No.l, the Appellant states and submits that the authorities below erred in holding that, the entire amount received by the Appellant, including those in United States Dollar ('USD'), was attributable

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

gains of business or profession" in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Invoking the aforesaid provisions the AO attributed 50% of the receipts from providing services as income chargeable to tax in India as per Sec.44DA of the Act. 12. Before DRP the Assessee submitted that the assesse had setup a Project Office (PO) in India

ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHALEEN KHEMANI,, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- Shaleen Khemani [Pan: Agapk 6810 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains of Rs.1,27,92,984 as cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961. 4. The assessee submitted that he had fully discharged the initial burden placed on him to furnish supporting evidences as regards the transactions claimed to have been carried out by him and had furnished all the evidences reasonably expected to be in his possession

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

permanent account number. He contended that all these infirmities in the relevant documentary evidence produced by the assessee as well as other infirmities specifically pointed out by the Assessing Officer clearly show that the claim of the assessee of having paid the amount in question as reimbursement to salaries paid to its employees was not genuine and as held

M/S SHREYANS JAIN, HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Shreyans Jain, Huf…………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Dalhousie Square 6Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aaths 2107 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-36(2), Kolkata………………………………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details available and the information supplied was extremely

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted 9 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted 9 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 C.O. No. 407/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Mala Roy & Others and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

permanent establishment. However, Article 7(6) of this DTAA clearly provides that where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this convention, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article. Article 13(1) of the DTAA, separately dealing with fees for technical services, further provides

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gain u/s 46A. Therefore, when money is lost due to permanent diminution of value of equity shares, it is not covered u/s 36 of I.T. Act, which is a deduction to be allowed in case of events which has a direct link to income to be computed u/s 28 under Part D of Chapter IV of I.T. Act. The claim

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

established nexus or link which disclosed\nescapement of income. The annexure was not a pointer and did not\nindicate escapement of income.\n(iv) Further, the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the\ninformation and examine the basis and material of the information.\nThere was no dispute that the company, S, had a paid-up capital

I T C LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(IT) 2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 673/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.C. Limited -Vs.- A.D.I.T. (I.T.)-2(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 5950 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri N.B.Som, Jcit. Sr.Dr

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. As to when a non-resident would be considered as having a PE in the other country is generally decided on the basis of the facts in each case, the criteria being the extent to which the Non-Resident has set a firm foot in the soil of the other country. Admittedly