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 gains contained in Section 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. D. Hanumantha

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 gains contained in Section 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. D. Hanumantha

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LGW LTD., NORTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 43B of the Act, the AO added a sum of Rs/.32,11,437/- as disallowance u/s 43B of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 20. Before CIT(A) assessee pointed out that no duty of service tax was outstanding. The assessee furnished certificate of the auditors in this regard which is at page

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

183 incurred for maintenance of the Guest House 4 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd as well as the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,342,658 should not be considered as non-business expenditure and disallowed. 8. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in estimating an amount of Rs.5 lakh as expenditure

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

183 incurred for maintenance of the Guest House 4 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd as well as the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,342,658 should not be considered as non-business expenditure and disallowed. 8. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in estimating an amount of Rs.5 lakh as expenditure

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

183 incurred for maintenance of the Guest House 4 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd as well as the depreciation amounting to Rs.1,342,658 should not be considered as non-business expenditure and disallowed. 8. For that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in estimating an amount of Rs.5 lakh as expenditure

SHRI KISHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

capital gain in assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. We note that the Department has been consistently accepting the assessee as an Investor and not a trader, in past assessment years therefore, we do not uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A), following the Rule of consistency.The revenue should follow the consistency in taxing a particular income

ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KISHAN SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

capital gain in assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. We note that the Department has been consistently accepting the assessee as an Investor and not a trader, in past assessment years therefore, we do not uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A), following the Rule of consistency.The revenue should follow the consistency in taxing a particular income

ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

183/- 2. Long Term Capital Gain 992,875/- 3. Income from Other Sources 5,19,69,617/- 4. Add. – House Property deduction @ 30% 19,39,79,159/- (treating as business income) 5. Add. Expenditure towards Horse Welfare 2,00,00,000/- 6. Add. U/s. 43B (prior period expense) 14,90,447/- 7. Add – Entrance Fees as revenue receipt

LUXMI TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CEN-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 731/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Luxmi Co. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Central-2 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaact 8466 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017. Order

Capital gains 1,95,54,032 Income tax on other Business Income @30% 1,13,99,547 22,79,909 81,54,486 24,46,346 Add:Surcharge @ 10% 47,26,255 4,72,625 Add: Education Cess @ 3% 51,98,880 Total Income tax payable 1,55,966 Less : tax Deducted at source 53,54,847 Advance Income

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

gains of business and profession'. The Board also went to the extent of\nsaying that this would not be limited only to co-operative societies/Banks\nclaiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 disclosing the Long-Term Capital Gain

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains or dividend. The time and effort involved in the case of the company was far less in comparison to any other companies engaged in regular investments activities earning exempting income. 3.5 In both the assessment years, the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders has failed to discharge his onus of recording his satisfaction, having regard to the, accounts

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains or dividend. The time and effort involved in the case of the company was far less in comparison to any other companies engaged in regular investments activities earning exempting income. 3.5 In both the assessment years, the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders has failed to discharge his onus of recording his satisfaction, having regard to the, accounts