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:

section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

4 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited does not cover an order passed by the Assessing Officer in conformity with the directions of the DRP under section 144C of the Act, such orders are not susceptible of being revised in terms of section 263 of the Act. 1.1.3. From a perusal of the memorandum explaining

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra is applicable to the present case, thus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ADARSH HEIGHTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 253 before the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. The details procedure are furnished below:- 1. Calling for ASR by Ld. Pr. CIT Central-1, Kolkata office 25.06.2024 letter dated 2. Letter received by the AO 25.06.2024 I.T.A. No.: 1949/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. 3. ASR furnished by AO before the Addl. CIT Central 19.07.2024 Range

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the subsidy was not given at the time of setting up of the industry but after commencement of production for repayment of loan. In such situation, the amount should have been treated as revenue receipt, as per judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works

M/S. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shristi Infrastructure Dcit, Development Corporation Circle 11(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No.X-12 & 3, Block P-7, Chowringhee Vs. Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City, Square, Kolkata700069 Kolkata-700 091 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5074F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surna, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024

section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually allowed. Accordingly, during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Appellant had claimed depreciation on the Written down value of goodwill amounting to Rs. 750,00,000/ -. 1.9 Reference in this regard is invited to the revised return

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.881/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.X-1,2 & 3, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp5074F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata Dated 26.12.2018 Passed In Case No.738/Cit(A)-4/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually allowed. Accordingly, during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Appellant had claimed depreciation on the Written down value of goodwill amounting to Rs. 750,00,000/ -. 1.9 Reference in this regard is invited to the revised return

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

depreciation on aircraft in terms of section 38(2) of the Act vide his section 263 order dated 30.1.2013. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 529/Kol/2013- M/s. EIH Limited 3 C-AM 3.2. The Learned AR argued that during the relevant previous year, the assessee maintained two aircrafts bearing Registration No. VT EJZ (King

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

253 ITR 749 is well placed and supports the case of the assessee. We also find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR that if at all there is any personal element involved in the aforesaid expenditure, the same have to be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the directors and it is only

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

253 ITR 749 is well placed and supports the case of the assessee. We also find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR that if at all there is any personal element involved in the aforesaid expenditure, the same have to be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the directors and it is only

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

253 relied by the ld CIT(A) is distinguishable from the instant facts of the case. In that case the subsidy was provided to assist/ enable the assessee in carrying on its trade or business in more profitable manner. The subsidy was provided only after the set up of industry. Payments were not being made in the form of subsidy

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

253 relied by the ld CIT(A) is distinguishable from the instant facts of the case. In that case the subsidy was provided to assist/ enable the assessee in carrying on its trade or business in more profitable manner. The subsidy was provided only after the set up of industry. Payments were not being made in the form of subsidy

COMMERCIAL HOUSE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

PEARL PARK BEACH RESORTS,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4),, PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253(5), the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In this connection, it is submitted that one of the partners of the appellant firm

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253/- respectively. In the course of assessment the AO had issued several requisitions u/s 142(1) asking the assessee to furnish the details on various issues, which was furnished by the assessee from time to time. After examining the replies furnished, the AO finally show caused the assessee on several other issues viz. disallowance of forward contract loss of Rs.39

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

depreciation on leased assets of Rs. 4,36,03,330 and non- -grant of claim of principal portion of lease rentals grant of claim of principal portion of lease rentals amounting to Rs. 5,37,68,623/ amounting to Rs. 5,37,68,623/- 17.1. The issue is covered in favour The issue is covered in favour of the assessee