DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORBIS POWER VENTURE PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. Having aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). We find that the same arguments which were advanced before the Assessing Officer were reiterated before the CIT(A). Further it is observed that the Memorandum of Association is appears to have been filed before

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

36,261/- 11,51,351/- 10,15,090/- BLUE DART 154 13,259/- 1,23,508/- 1,10,248/- EI HOTEL 31488 16,44,230/- 58,22,280/- 41,78,050/- FEDERAL 22646 39,99,592/- 80,58,550/- 40,58,958/- BANK HINDSANIT

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

36,261/- 11,51,351/- 10,15,090/- BLUE DART 154 13,259/- 1,23,508/- 1,10,248/- EI HOTEL 31488 16,44,230/- 58,22,280/- 41,78,050/- FEDERAL 22646 39,99,592/- 80,58,550/- 40,58,958/- BANK HINDSANIT

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital and premium amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 263:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. These observations were raised in the show cause notice, which is discussed hereunder:- (i) Long term capital gain(without STT):- The assessee claimed long term capital loss (without STT) of Rs.109,80,30,873/-on account of loss suffered from government securities(Rs.111

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

iii) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year, Such excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital asset; (2) where any block of assets cease to exist as such, for the reason that all the assets ins that block are transferred

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

gains of business or profession. 7.2 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause

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

gains of business or profession. 7.2 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act deals with interest and other sums payable outside India. The provisions of this sub-clause made applicable to interest have been extended to payment of royalty, technical fees and any other sum chargeable under this Act. The section provides that the sums covered by the sub-clause

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:

iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is deleted, then the disallowance made by the ld AO would remain

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:

iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is deleted, then the disallowance made by the ld AO would remain

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 115JA(1) although quantification of that right depends upon the ultimate determination of total income for the first assessment year.’ Therefore, as righty pointed out by the ld. SR. counsel for the assessee, first the total income has to be determined for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. We, accordingly, restore the matter back to the file

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

36. Let us sum up our discussions on this part of the scheme of Section 9, so far as tax implications on commission agency business carried out by non-residents for Indian principals is concerned. It does not need much of a cerebral exercise to find out whether the income ITA No.1354/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act allows deduction of the interest paid in respect of the capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia vs CIT (supra) has noted that the expression “for the purpose of his business” is wider in scope than the expression

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)

36(1) (iii) of the Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatta vs CIT (1979) 118 ITR 0200 wherein it was held as follows: "Under s. 10(2)(iii), three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to enable the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

36 was modified vide letter dt. 19/12/2017. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and modified Ground No. 2 are reproduced as under:- “1. FOR that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the shares sold within 90 days be treated as business income