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

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra, we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

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:

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra , we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

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:

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra , we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

ITO,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SREI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

260/- (exceeding 6 months) and Rs.81 lakhs (below 6 months) totaling Rs.151,86 lakhs. Since the sundry debtor for the AY 2008-09 has been shown of Rs.9.77 lakhs, the assessee at best can write off bad debts to the tune of Rs.1.42 crore but the assessee has written off bad debts to the extent of Rs.2.32 crore resulting

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

260 ITR 84 (SC) has also made it clear that the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) cannot be the subject-matter of proceedings in rectification under section 154 when once the regular assessment under ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06 AYs. 96-97 & 98-99 ICI India Ltd. v. DCIT, Cir-10,Kol. Page 18 section

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

260 ITR 84 (SC) has also made it clear that the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) cannot be the subject-matter of proceedings in rectification under section 154 when once the regular assessment under ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06 AYs. 96-97 & 98-99 ICI India Ltd. v. DCIT, Cir-10,Kol. Page 18 section

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

260 ITR 84 (SC) has also made it clear that the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) cannot be the subject-matter of proceedings in rectification under section 154 when once the regular assessment under ITA No.850,1021/Kol/07, 2048,2355/Kol/05 & 487 & 507/Kol/06 AYs. 96-97 & 98-99 ICI India Ltd. v. DCIT, Cir-10,Kol. Page 18 section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

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

section 32A applies. Further in the case of Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. vs DCIT in [2016] 67 taxmann.com 260, the Honble Kolkata ITAT held as under. "Mining of coal is production of coal and assessee engaged in mining of coal would be entitled to additional depreciation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

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

section 32A applies. Further in the case of Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. vs DCIT in [2016] 67 taxmann.com 260, the Honble Kolkata ITAT held as under. "Mining of coal is production of coal and assessee engaged in mining of coal would be entitled to additional depreciation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

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

section 32A applies. Further in the case of Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. vs DCIT in [2016] 67 taxmann.com 260, the Honble Kolkata ITAT held as under. "Mining of coal is production of coal and assessee engaged in mining of coal would be entitled to additional depreciation

DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BCH ELECTRIC LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 32(1)(iia). The phrase is very simple and clear. The AO's arguments for disallowance deviate from the very simple and clear meaning of the phrase. The AO's various arguments, and my remarks thereon, are: AO's arguments My Observations/Remarks That the aggregate of increase Even by this aggregation, the installed in installed capacity for all capacity

DHRUB NARAYAN BHADANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-39, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 28/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dhrub Narayan Bhadani..............................………………………………………...Appellant C/O. B.S. Sahay & Co., Room No. 431, Centre Point, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Akdpb3207D] A.C.I.T., Cir 39, Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri R.S. Sahay, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata Dated 16.10.2015. 2. Ground No 1 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Under: “The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,05,130/- Being 50% Of Total Purchases On Estimate Made By The Ld. A.O. & Has Also Been Unjustified In Further Enhancing The Same By Rs. 4,05,130/- By Erroneously Holding The Same To Be Violative Of Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Without Appreciating The Fact That Section 40A(3) Was Not Applicable. The Addition Is Based On Surmises & Conjectures & Totally Against Facts Of The Case Itself As There Has Been No Single Instance Of Payment Exceeding 20,000/- To Any Party On Any Daty.”

260/-. 3 I.T.A. No. 28/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dhrub Narayan Bhadani 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee from the relevant details placed at page no 17 to 26, none of the cash payments

MOHESHWARY STEEL SUPPLY CO., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 44, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

260/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 10.03.2016, the following additions were made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee:- (i) Disallowance of interest Rs.46,56,868/- (ii) Bogus creditors Rs.35,42,249/- I.T.A. No. 1373/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 (iii) Difference in the balance of Rs.77,17,471/- loan

M/S HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 48 of the Act. The Court held, dismissing the appeal that the sale proceeds received by the assessee were from sale of a going concern, which was a slump sale and not a sale of block of asset. 4 Hindustan Engg. & Ind. Ltd., AY 2009-10 33. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court ln Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Income

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

M/S. DARJEELING ORGANIC TEA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 748/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd...............................………………...........Appellant 7Th Floor, Jain Centre, 34A, Metcalfe Street, Kolkata – 700 013. [Pan: Aadcd 1923 B] Vs. Dcit, Cir – 4(1), Kolkata ……………………………...........................................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order November 20, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata Dated 19.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, there was no provision for charging depreciation @ 100% on ‘leasehold Land & Plantation” under the Block “Plant & Machinery). Thus, the above depreciation which was claimed and allowed was irregular in nature and required to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. ii. As per Profit & Loss Account for the year

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMUK SCAN INVESTMENT PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

260 ITR 341, 345,346(Cal), the Hon'ble High Court held that "under section 36(1) (iii), interest on borrowed capital can be allowed as a deduction if the borrowed capital is used for the purposes of business of the assessee. A business purpose is for the carrying on of the business and such purpose in capacity

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SALTEE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation” is not an expenditure but the same is statutory deduction. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, there is no question of deducting the TDS on capital expenditure. We also disagree with the allegation of the Revenue

DCIT, CIR-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELS LTD., BURDWAN

In the result, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkeyi.T.A. No. 1010/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Eastern Coalfields Ltd....................………………..…………….………………………………..………Assessee [Pan :Aaace 7590 E] Jcit, R-2, Asansol………………..…………………………………………………….……………………....Revenue &

depreciation. Consistent with the view taken by us while adjudicating the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 7.4 In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 7.5 Ground No.4 is on the issue of carry forward of unabsorbed