THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

263) ELT 641 (SC) and in view of judgment of Hon Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Limited - 2009 (12) SCC 419 = 2009 (237) ELT 225 (SC)]. Even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

2) of the Income Tax Act. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relating to provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act and ground No.5 relates to enhancement by the CIT(A), all these grounds are inter-related, therefore we take them together. 5.The brief facts qua the issue are that an assessment u/s 143(3) had been made

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

263 (SC) which has dealt with the principle of mutuality . The Ld. A.R also relied on a series of decision passed by other judicial forums such as CIT vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmasu in ITA NO. 399 & 402/2022 vide order dated 18.10.2023 and Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3259/Del/2017 dated 29.04.2022. 11. As regards other income

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

263 (SC) which has dealt with the principle of mutuality . The Ld. A.R also relied on a series of decision passed by other judicial forums such as CIT vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmasu in ITA NO. 399 & 402/2022 vide order dated 18.10.2023 and Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3259/Del/2017 dated 29.04.2022. 11. As regards other income

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

gain which accrued on execution of Sale Deed on 24.07.2008, the deduction for such notionally received consideration should have been allowed by way of cost of acquisition. We however find that having held that the ‘transfer’ of the assessee’s rights, title & interest in land stood transferred in August 2005, the Ld. CIT(A) granted deduction for cost of acquisition

SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

gain which accrued on execution of Sale Deed on 24.07.2008, the deduction for such notionally received consideration should have been allowed by way of cost of acquisition. We however find that having held that the ‘transfer’ of the assessee’s rights, title & interest in land stood transferred in August 2005, the Ld. CIT(A) granted deduction for cost of acquisition

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the ld. PCIT is not justified in exercising the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment to the ld. Assessing Officer for fresh examination into these issues. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

263 of the Act. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that in the assessment year 2018-19 the Tribunal has decided the issue of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to the assessee vide order dated 28.06.2024. In the said order, the Coordinate Bench first held that

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:

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 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:

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

gain for all other provisions and is eligible for set off u/s 74 against brought forward loss from long term capital asset. 6.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Panel while confirming the action of Ld. AO grossly erred in not applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the decision

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain and has accepted the same. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in placing reliance on the Explanation 2 to section 263

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The points noted above would indicate that- (1) AVANI possibly never paid any consideration to the 8 shareholders of BFM Including BFM and the transaction was merely on paper. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that despite being asked repeatedly in course of hearing, the assessee was unable to confirm if any money was paid by AVANI

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The points noted above would indicate that- (1) AVANI possibly never paid any consideration to the 8 shareholders of BFM Including BFM and the transaction was merely on paper. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that despite being asked repeatedly in course of hearing, the assessee was unable to confirm if any money was paid by AVANI