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

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

depreciation and expenditure are not allowable deduction while computing book profit under s. 115J of the IT Act, 1961, rlw s. 205(1), proviso (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Same ratio was laid down in the Gilt Pack case discussed in detail above. iv) CIT vs Harprasad & Co. Pvt Ltd 1975 CTR (SC) 65 "From the charging provisions

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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:

65,397,301 The Oberoi Mumbai/Tident Nariman Point 35,607,111 Trident Bandra Kurla, Mumbai (Operations) 9,260,223 Oberoi Flight Services, Mumbai 1,081,847 Oberoi Airport Services, Mumbai 169,761 The Oberoi, Bangalore 9,805,671 The Oberoi Vanyavilas, Ranthambore 2,113,523 Maidens Hotel, Delhi 3,806 OFS New Delhi (New Project) 63,794,695 Oberoi Centre

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:

65,397,301 The Oberoi Mumbai/Tident Nariman Point 35,607,111 Trident Bandra Kurla, Mumbai (Operations) 9,260,223 Oberoi Flight Services, Mumbai 1,081,847 Oberoi Airport Services, Mumbai 169,761 The Oberoi, Bangalore 9,805,671 The Oberoi Vanyavilas, Ranthambore 2,113,523 Maidens Hotel, Delhi 3,806 OFS New Delhi (New Project) 63,794,695 Oberoi Centre

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

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

depreciation and not allowing set off of brought forward business loss. We will first deal with the issue with regard to deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which the issue with regard to claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act arises for consideration are as follows: ITA Nos.154&155/Kol/2013 – M/s. Lat Peak

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

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

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

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

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

65,406/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess\ndepreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October