D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

depreciation on Furniture & Fixtures when the assessee,\nexcept for claiming that the equipment identified for having claimed excess\ndepreciation are integral to the manufacturing process, has not been able to\nprove or justify as to how the concerned items enhance the production\nprocess or output of the business.\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

depreciation on Furniture & Fixtures when the assessee,\nexcept for claiming that the equipment identified for having claimed excess\ndepreciation are integral to the manufacturing process, has not been able to\nprove or justify as to how the concerned items enhance the production\nprocess or output of the business.\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- PVS Memorial Hospital

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- PVS Memorial Hospital

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

201/- at the time of filing of return. In the course of assessment tile appellant had substantiated the basis adopted for offering the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. I also note that the methodology adopted by the appellant for disallowing administrative expenses u/s 14A was consistently followed and accepted in the appellant's regular assessments upto

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

201/- at the time of filing of return. In the course of assessment tile appellant had substantiated the basis adopted for offering the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. I also note that the methodology adopted by the appellant for disallowing administrative expenses u/s 14A was consistently followed and accepted in the appellant's regular assessments upto

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

201/- at the time of filing of return. In the course of assessment tile appellant had substantiated the basis adopted for offering the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. I also note that the methodology adopted by the appellant for disallowing administrative expenses u/s 14A was consistently followed and accepted in the appellant's regular assessments upto

M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (TDS) CIRCLE - 59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

201(1)/201(lA) of the 1. T. Act. During the relevant previous year, the appellant has made total payments of Rs.1,16,50,000/- to M/s. Rasika Entertainments (Rs.5,50,000/-), M/s. 3G Digital Solutions (Rs.3,50,000/-), Sree Chakra Films Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.7,50,000/-), Moxie Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.15,00,000/-) and M/s. Rituparno, Ghosh Productions (Rs.85

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]

201 ITR 493 (SC) and CIT vs. M/s PFH Mall & amp; Retail Management pvt. Ltd. (4.9.2012-SC) [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal C No. 6756/2009 (from the judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in ITA NO. 763/2007 of High Court of Calcutta).In the case of DCIT vs. Kolkata Port Trust in ITA No. 453/Kol/2018, CO No. 60/KOl/2018

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]

201 ITR 493 (SC) and CIT vs. M/s PFH Mall & amp; Retail Management pvt. Ltd. (4.9.2012-SC) [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal C No. 6756/2009 (from the judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in ITA NO. 763/2007 of High Court of Calcutta).In the case of DCIT vs. Kolkata Port Trust in ITA No. 453/Kol/2018, CO No. 60/KOl/2018

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

201(1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which are held to be applicable to the year under consideration being retrospective in effect. If the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is found to be not sustainable by the AO in the year under consideration. The question of allowing deduction for A.Y 2012-13 as directed

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

201(IA) could not be applied? (b) Without prejudice to the above, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, payment of wheeling and transmission charges to the entitles like MSETCL and PGCIL, should have been treated as fees for technical services and tax should have been deducted at source under section 194J

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

201 of the Act. Therefore according to the assessee there is no default u/s 195 of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

201 of the Act. Therefore according to the assessee there is no default u/s 195 of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

201 of the Act. Therefore according to the assessee there is no default u/s 195 of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

201 of the Act. Therefore according to the assessee there is no default u/s 195 of the Act and no disallowance u/s 40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the submission made by Shri Chandak during the TDS proceedings cannot be relied upon as he was acting as an employee of ITA No.116/Kol/2014 & CO. 12/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 ACIT, Cir-40, Kol. Vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others Page 6 SMPL. Moreover, Shri Chandak was not aware

MADHU REANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-II(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

201 (1) and that certificate should be in form no.26A. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Id. CIT (A) and direct the Id. AO to delete the addition.\n\n08. The second issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Id. CIT (A) not allowing the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.\n\n09. The facts