GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Permanent Establishment ( PE) in India; 2. The contract between the Assesssee and GRSE has two limbs- i) Offshore services, ii) On shore services 3. The payments made by GRSE in USD are for Off-shore services and those made in Indian Rupee (INR) are for On-shore services 4. The Assessee also contended that the entire receipts of the Assessee

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

Permanent Establishment in India? 2 The Ld CIT (A) erred in relying upon the CBDT circular no. 163 dated 29/05/75 & circular no 786 date 07/02/2000, without noticing that these circulars have been superceded by CBDT circular no. 07/2009 date 22/10/2009.” 3. Any other ground to be taken at the time of hearing. 9. None appeared on behalf of the revenue

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GIFFORD LLP, LONDON

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

disallowance stood rendered infructuous in view of the fact that it did not have any permanent establishment in India. We notice

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GIFFORD LLP, LONDON

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

disallowance stood rendered infructuous in view of the fact that it did not have any permanent establishment in India. We notice

ACIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GIFFORD LLP, LONDON

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

disallowance stood rendered infructuous in view of the fact that it did not have any permanent establishment in India. We notice

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

established under the Companies Act, 1956. 12. At the outset, we find that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee in its own case for AY 2002-03 in ITA No.1768/Kol/2009 dated 27.1.2015, wherein the Tribunal has decided held that : “7.5. In view of the above, we hold that in view of the legislative change brought about

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

established under the Companies Act, 1956. 12. At the outset, we find that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee in its own case for AY 2002-03 in ITA No.1768/Kol/2009 dated 27.1.2015, wherein the Tribunal has decided held that : “7.5. In view of the above, we hold that in view of the legislative change brought about

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance on estimated basis. The Learned CITA made extensive verification of the details filed by the assessee. It was argued that payments towards foreign advertisements to the extent of Rs. 2,05,46,761/- should not be subjected to tax in India as services were rendered outside India and the respective payees do not have any permanent establishment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance on estimated basis. The Learned CITA made extensive verification of the details filed by the assessee. It was argued that payments towards foreign advertisements to the extent of Rs. 2,05,46,761/- should not be subjected to tax in India as services were rendered outside India and the respective payees do not have any permanent establishment

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

permanent establishment in India since it is taxable u/s 9 (2)(vii) Explanation 2 as well as Article 12 of India Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. All these substantive grounds are vehemently reiterated during the course of hearing. Learned Addl. CIT (DR) reminds us time and again that the relevant benefits of India Portugal Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

ABN AMRO BANK N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Since the assessee (The Royal Bank of Scotland ) is having a PE in India, the assessee is liable to tax in respect of income attributed to the PE. The assessee charged tax at 36.5925% on its profits on the ground that in view of Article 24 of DTAA with Netherlands, the tax rate applicable

I.T.O WD - 12(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S JAI VIKSHU NIKETAN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

permanent establishment in India. 5. The commission was paid directly to the agent outside India. As the commission was not taxable in India therefore the question of deduction of TDS does not arise. However, the AO disallowed

SUNNY TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT--2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance of brokerage paid to non-resident brokers have been made. He also stated that declaration by parties of not having any permanent establishment

ERSHISANYE CONSTRUCTION GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

permanent establishment or fixed base is situated. 7. xxxxx Explanation 2 to Sec.9(1)(vii) of the Act defines FTS for the purpose of the Act to mean any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration

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

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

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

TAPAN KUMAR DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

disallowances are perverse, rather against evidence and material on record and without an iota of material or evidence to support and sustain the same. 2. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)–15/Kolkata though agreed with the contention of assessee that assessee is NON- RESIDENT