M/S. MANAKSIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(3) (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 172. Similarly, in view of the decision in ACIT -vs- Minpro Industries, the disallowance made by the AO for non-deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

172 (SC) hence, we hold that the action of the AO in directly embarking on Rule 8D(2) of the IT rules is not appreciated and hence no disallowance under section

M/S M. K. AMBER WEAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 40A(3). The same is, therefore, upheld on this issue dismissing Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. The issue involved in Ground No. 3 relates to the disallowance of Rs.72,172

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

172 of the Act which provides non obstante clause which has an overriding effect over the other provision of the Act. Therefore, the TDS was not deducted. However, the AO perused one TDS certificate issued under ITA No.1011/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DCIT Cir-4, Kol. v. M/s Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. Page 3 section 197 of the Act which states

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 172. The disallowances of Rs.83,026/- and Rs.86,934/- are confirmed. Ground no. 3 is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in second

DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED PIGMENTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 5.3.3 of his impugned order. “5.3.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the AR. I am inclined to accept the submissions of the appellant. In the case of shipping business of non-residents, the provisions of section 172

AMBIA SOHRAB,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

section 153A of the Act was completed on 29/03/2022 at the total income of Rs.60,55,28,750/- after making various additions/disallowances. As regards the personal expenses, the assessee submitted as under before the Ld. PCIT: Regarding personal expenditure of Rs. 6,82,720/- as mentioned in the Tax Audit Report, I would like to state that I, the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowed the expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not ITA Nos..1146, 1138/Kol/2012-C-AM 8 satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee. Challenging the order of the tribunal, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard Mr.Bhowmik

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

172/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules in the sum of Rs. 57,386/-. Accordingly, total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the 3 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 Rules worked out to Rs. 2,73,558/-. The ld CIT(A) sustained

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

172/- and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules in the sum of Rs. 57,386/-. Accordingly, total disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the 3 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg. Ltd.., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 Rules worked out to Rs. 2,73,558/-. The ld CIT(A) sustained

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

disallowed in cases to which these provisions of the section apply. Sub-section (7) of section 40A was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1973. It is necessary to appreciate the purpose and object intended to be achieved by this sub-section in order to arrive at the true meaning of the provision

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance made by the AO is hereby deleted. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant company.” Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground of appeal: 4 5 I.T. A. No. 2627/Kol/2013 Assessment Years: 2009-10 “2. Whether

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of Rs.66,89,134/- is deleted. 14 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh 12. Grounds No. 8(a) & 8B), the issue is regarding addition under section 68 of the Act for sundry creditors of Rs.2,85,73,172

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

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Since the entire operation of the vendor is carried outside India, it is not taxable under the Income tax Act as business income as well. Since tax treaty between India and Mauritius does not have any fees for technical service clause, in absence of 'permanent establishment, the concerned service is not taxable

SOLTEK INSOLATION P. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aatcs 0007 M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On A Proper Interpretation Of The Scope & Ambit Of The Provisions Of Section 43B Read With S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Nfac Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc In Resorting To The Impugned Disallowance Of Rs. 42,35,172/- In The Instant Case & The Purported Finding On That Behalf Is Absolutely Arbitrary, Unreasonable & Perverse.

172/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI, disallowance of Rs. 77,380/- u/s 37 of the Act. Further disallowance of Rs. 9,933/- by invoking the provisions of section