ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARTAJ SEWA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

permanent establishment or any place of business or control or administration in India. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was also

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

established. 4. Without prejudice to the merit of the case; considering the entire cash deposit of Rs.1,73,77,481/- as unexplained money under section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961; while estimating profit at the rate of 8% on turnover the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts by treating only amount of cash deposit in bank accounts

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning of Article 5(2)(1) of the DTAA between India and USA. However, in the present case, the factual dispute is as to whether the IT services received by the assessee under the aforesaid agreement was in the nature of stewardship services or not. To this extent, we conclude that the aforesaid decision

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning\nof Article 5(2)(1) of the DTAA between India and USA. However, in the present case, the\nfactual dispute is as to whether the IT services received by the assessee under the\naforesaid agreement was in the nature of stewardship services or not. To this extent, we\nconclude that the aforesaid decision

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning of Article 5(2)(1) of the DTAA between India and USA. However, in the present case, the factual dispute is as to whether the IT services received by the assessee under the aforesaid agreement was in the nature of stewardship services or not. To this extent, we conclude that the aforesaid decision

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning of Article 5(2)(1) of the DTAA between India and USA. However, in the present case, the factual dispute is as to whether the IT services received by the assessee under the aforesaid agreement was in the nature of stewardship services or not. To this extent, we conclude that the aforesaid decision

GAUTAM ARORA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

disallowed the benefit of DTAA under Article 15. 5 I.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora 5. When the matter came up before the ld. CIT(A), he confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer observing that as per Section 5(2) of the Act, any income received or is deemed to be received in India

APEEJAY SURRENDRA PARK HOTELS LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

permanent establishment in India, no tax at source is deductible from the said sum as services were provided from outside India and no technical 6 I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. knowhow was made available to the assessee company. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer erred in invoking section

APEEJAY SURRENDRA PARK HOTEL LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T, CIR-8(1),KOL, KOLKATA

Accordingly, relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the disallowance of Rs.69,970/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 raised for Assessment Year 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Vs Tax, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Apeejay House 15, Park Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aaacb7961L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Evenly Dt. 28/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The First Common Ground Raised By The Assessee For Both The Assessment Years Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Disallowing Interest On Borrowed Funds. For The Sake Of Convenience, Facts In Respect Of This Issue Is Taken From Ita No. 372/Kol/2023; Assessment Year 2016-17. 2

permanent establishment in India, no tax at source is deductible from the said sum as services were provided from outside India and no technical 6 I.T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. knowhow was made available to the assessee company. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer erred in invoking section

M/S. LA OPALA RG LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1) [FORMERLY JCIT, RANGE-12, KOLKATA ], KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

permanent establishment ("PE"). The Ld. AO has not proved in the assessment order that the agent to whom commission is paid, has PE in India. Merely, being dependent for business in india does not amount to being PE in India. 6.17 Therefore, the addition carried out by the Ld. AO is not found to be in right sprit

NAT WEST MARKETS PLC- INDIA BRANCH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

permanent establishment in India as well as in respect of its income which accrued or rose in India. While giving appeal effect for A.Y. 2014-15, the Revenue determines that the tax refund of ₹40,76,1390/- which is included in interest of ₹9,65,18,062/- u/s 244A of the Act of which tax at source

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

permanent establishment in India and also that the services provided are not in the nature of royalty and fee for technical services. Accordingly we direct the A.O to delete the demand. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” Though the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in respect of above issue on merits. However, the admitted fact is that

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NEDERLAND B.V.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (INT. TAX), CIR.-24(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

permanent establishment (PE) in India. Assessee had entered into a General Service Unit Agreement (GSU) on 01.01.2014 with Philips India Ltd. (PIL) and Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Preethi) for providing various I T related services under the said GSU to these two entities. During the year under consideration, assessee had received certain amounts from these two entities under

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

permanent business assets of the assessee and\nhence, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for renovating the office,\ngodown etc. is to be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee has failed\nto establish as to how the expenditures mentioned by him can help the\nassessee in the process of earning profit in the course of his business\nactivities. These expenditures

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

permanent business assets of the assessee and\nhence, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for renovating the office,\ngodown etc. is to be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee has failed\nto establish as to how the expenditures mentioned by him can help the\nassessee in the process of earning profit in the course of his business\nactivities. These expenditures

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

permanent business assets of the assessee and\nhence, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for renovating the office,\ngodown etc. is to be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee has failed\nto establish as to how the expenditures mentioned by him can help the\nassessee in the process of earning profit in the course of his business\nactivities. These expenditures

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

disallowed the royalty paid by treating the same as capital expenditure. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. DRP rejected the appeal of the assessee on this issue by stating that the Coordinate Bench decision in A.Y. 2010-11 has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court which can not be a ground for confirmation of the disallowance.The

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

permanent business assets of the assessee and\nhence, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for renovating the office,\ngodown etc. is to be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee has failed\nto establish as to how the expenditures mentioned by him can help the\nassessee in the process of earning profit in the course of his business\nactivities. These expenditures