M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation and amortization expense of INR 3.67 lakhs as application of income. 2 I.T.A. No. 287/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust 2.3 That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in disallowing the application of income of INR 3933.05 lakhs towards addition to fixed assets and capital work-in progress solely on the assumption that there existed separate

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 133(6)/ 131 of the Act. But the AO erred in doing and doubted the payment of the commission on several grounds. Indeed in the immediate preceding year the amount of commission payment was of meager amount and in the current year it has increased manifolds. In this regard we find that the fact that the turnover

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKARIA INFRAPROJECTS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

133(6) of the Act were issued did not submit PAN, return of income, audited accounts, sales tax, VAT, Excise utilization and transport bills with insurance documents ITA No.296/Kol/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT, Cir-6, Kol. v. M/s Sikaria Infraprojects (P) Ltd. Page 4 etc. In view of above, AO treated the purchase for an amount

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation 9. Computation of total income. 10. Thus, the aforesaid documents were received by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and thereafter he issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the thirty eight (38) share applicant companies and after perusal of the documents furnished by them (PB-II pages 1-843) and thereafter, summoned the director

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED TOOLINGS INDIA PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

133(6) of the Act to AEMS. In our considered view once AO has not received any reply from AEMS then this fact should have been brought to the notice of assessee before taking any action against the assessee. Thus we note that the principle of natural justice was not complied by AO. 7.1 On being confronted

WITZENMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIR. -2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

section 133(6) of the Act and to collate the information on capacity details of comparable companies, such as actual capacity in units, installed capacity, breakup of affixed and variable cost, product wise segmental profitability (if any) and provide the assessee opportunity by sharing the details so obtained on the comparable companies. The Tribunal also held that if there

M/S. BHAGWATI FOODS PVT. LTD. (FOR THE MERGED COMPANY MANIS BAKING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarmai.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)......……………………………Appellant [Pan: Aadcm 6255 F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata.....................................Respondent Appearances By: Assessee Represented By – Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv. Department Represented By – Sh. Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 1St, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 31St, 2023 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [In Short Ld. 'Cit(A)'] Dated 08.08.2022 For The Assessment Years (In Short ‘Ay’) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015- 16. I.T.(S.S.)A. Nos.: 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 463/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Bhagwati Foods Pvt. Ltd. (For The Merged Company Manis Baking Solutions Pvt. Ltd.). It(Ss)A No. 55/Kol/2022

133(6) of the Act dated 21.09.2015 reveals that earlier assessment was framed in response to scrutiny proceedings initiated in that year. Ld. A/R therefore, vehemently submitted that the assessment completed after the date of search has to be treated as assessment completed in pursuance to proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and therefore, subsequent proceeding, notice and proceeding

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 133(6) of the Act, he went ahead to estimate the expenditure. He considered the upward/downward variation by 3% and taking the base of the expenses of the preceding financial year and estimated the expenses on oil and fuel charges at Rs.11,11,12,298/- and accordingly disallowed Rs.2,79,78,302/-. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has also affirmed

PADMAVATI PROPERTIES & TRUST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 32(1)(ii) - Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee] 7.5. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the assessee is entitled for claiming depreciation on intangible assets for payment of lump sum consideration of Rs 1,50,37,500/- and accordingly the claim

ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. S.H. MUMTAZUDDIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

133(6) of the Act for ascertaining the action taken by the police on the compliant lodged, whether any arrest has been made or imprisonment etc of the accountant or any other person in connivance and inspector of income tax was also deputed to the police station from time to time to know the development in this regard. These facts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 40(8) was inserted by the Finance No. 2) Act, 2004, even though the Finance Act, 2012 had not specifically stated that proviso is retrospective in nature. The High Court affirmed the ratio laid down by The Agra Tribunal and held that said proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005. Respectfully

HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act despite treating the expenses under the Repairs & Maintenance amounting to Rs. 9,99,856/- as capital expenditure. 6.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of AO who levied interest u/s 234B to the tune

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category - 1') M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category - 3) The basis of charge for Specific

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category - 1') M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category - 3) The basis of charge for Specific

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category - 1') M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category - 3) The basis of charge for Specific

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

depreciation of equipment, outside services and overheads expenses: • Marketing, VIP and technical sales support (Service Category - 1') M/s Vesuvius India Ltd. ITA Nos.1333&1289/Kol/2017 ITA Nos.206 & 207/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 • Human Resources support (Service Category - 2) • Finance, Information Systems, Business support and development, manufacturing, Engineering developments,(Service Category - 3) The basis of charge for Specific

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Ltd (supra). The facts of the case