MACNEILL ENGINEERING LTD,DCIT, CIR. 1(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would apply from AY 2021-22 onwards.Consequently ground no. 2 to 4 are allowed. 6. The issue raised in ground no. 5 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the issue of Rs. 89,269/- to the file of AO for verification

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

va) of RS.59,598/- on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due date of the relevant Act but before due date of return filing as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. 9.0. Denial of deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and the same involved is Rs. 3,03,447/-. The assessee has placed the relevant materials in such respect and has brought to my attention that there is some delay in the payment of PF / ESI dues. However, the same has been paid within the grace period allowed as per relevant

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and the same involved is Rs. 3,03,447/-. The assessee has placed the relevant materials in such respect and has brought to my attention that there is some delay in the payment of PF / ESI dues. However, the same has been paid within the grace period allowed as per relevant

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in View of the decision of 7 ITA No.100/Kol/2011& C.O.No.13/Kol/2011 532&217,533&218/Kol/2012 M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engg.Co.Ltd A.Yr.2006-07 the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA vs. KAMARHATTY COMPANY LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers’ contribution/ disallowance u/s 43B as against employee’s contribution u/s 36 (va

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SELVEL ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Saini

36(1)(va) r.w section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act.” 4. The Grievances raised by the assessee in Cross Objection No.97/Kol/2016, are as follows: “For that the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 31-3-2016 carrying a demand of Rs.1,07,78,270/- served on the assessee company on 28-4- 2016 i.e. 28 days after period

ACIT,CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SELVEL ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Saini

36(1)(va) r.w section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act.” 4. The Grievances raised by the assessee in Cross Objection No.97/Kol/2016, are as follows: “For that the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 31-3-2016 carrying a demand of Rs.1,07,78,270/- served on the assessee company on 28-4- 2016 i.e. 28 days after period

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act of Rs. 10,81,915/-. iii. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act of Rs. 1,60,58,154/-. iv. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of bank guarantee commission amounting to Rs. 25,27,28,272/-. v. Transfer pricing adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act of Rs. 10,81,915/-. iii. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act of Rs. 1,60,58,154/-. iv. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of bank guarantee commission amounting to Rs. 25,27,28,272/-. v. Transfer pricing adjustment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 43B by failing to appreciate the fact that the provisions of employees contribution is governed by the provisions of Sec 36(I)(va) provisions of employees contribution is governed by the provisions of Sec 36(I)(va) provisions of employees contribution is governed by the provisions of Sec 36(I)(va) read with

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1875, 1300 & 1299/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17, 2015-16 & 2012-13)

depreciation. There is no doubt that the assessee was also the owner of the machinery. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Norplex Oak India reported in 198 Taxman 0470 clearly decides the case in favour of the assessee. In Para Nos. 11 to 17, the issue has been dealt at length and in favour

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1875, 1300 & 1299/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17, 2015-16 & 2012-13)

depreciation. There is no doubt that the assessee was also the owner of the machinery. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Norplex Oak India reported in 198 Taxman 0470 clearly decides the case in favour of the assessee. In Para Nos. 11 to 17, the issue has been dealt at length and in favour

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1875, 1300 & 1299/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17, 2015-16 & 2012-13)

depreciation. There is no doubt that the assessee was also the owner of the machinery. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Norplex Oak India reported in 198 Taxman 0470 clearly decides the case in favour of the assessee. In Para Nos. 11 to 17, the issue has been dealt at length and in favour

AURELIA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub- section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and clause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 32(1) is that to remove discrimination and therefore it can be safely said that -the same is just a curative amendment. Even there is no provision u/s. 32(1) prohibiting the balance additional deprecation in the succeeding year. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the above contention of the Ld. DR. The appeal