DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

ii), “… … Any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services … … on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.” Thus, section uses the expression ‘has started or starts’ and ‘on or after April, 1, 1995 which would infer the benefit is available even to an existing undertaking which

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

depreciation. The ld. AR placed the order passed by the ITAT ‘B’ Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.158/Kol/2017 for assessment year 2015-16. The ld. AR also submits that that during the year, the assessee has debited Rs.15,35,03,202/- towards Interest on unsecured loan which was incurred during the normal course of business. His submission

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of section 56 shall\nbe the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares, as shall be\ndetermined under sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (e), at\nthe option of the assessee, where the consideration received by the assessee is from a\nresident ; and under sub-clauses

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80P of the Act provides exemption to various co-operative societies including a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members from the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities. Ld. PCIT placed reliance on the decision

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures

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:

ii) of the Rules is hereby directed to be deleted. 2.2. With regard to the third limb of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, we hold that the assessee has got investments in foreign companies , the dividend earned from which would be taxable income and hence should be outside the ambit of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read

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:

ii) of the Rules is hereby directed to be deleted. 2.2. With regard to the third limb of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, we hold that the assessee has got investments in foreign companies , the dividend earned from which would be taxable income and hence should be outside the ambit of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read

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

ii). 4.0 Disallowance of principal repayment of finance lease 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in law, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,85,68,539/- proposed by the Ld. AO on account of lease rental as capital expenditure. 4·1 On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

56,000/- by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance is accordingly deleted. ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 6 8. As regards disallowance of Rs.2,02,40,000/- made Rule 8D(2)(iii), I note that the said disallowance has been

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

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

56,000/- by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance is accordingly deleted. ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 6 8. As regards disallowance of Rs.2,02,40,000/- made Rule 8D(2)(iii), I note that the said disallowance has been

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

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

56,000/- by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance is accordingly deleted. ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 6 8. As regards disallowance of Rs.2,02,40,000/- made Rule 8D(2)(iii), I note that the said disallowance has been