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

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

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following

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

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

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following

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

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

iv) Manugraph India Ltd. [TS 324-ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] v) Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITS-185- ITAT 2016 (Mum)-TP] vi) Apollo Health Street Ltd. vs. DCIT [TS-184- ITAT 2014 (HYD)-TP] Therefore, based on the above mentioned precedents, we note that the provision of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. Hence, respectfully following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

iv. Advising the Mandator in evaluating, negotiating, finalizing and closing the Transaction. v. Advising the Mandator in structuring the Transaction to mitigate risks with respect to financial, regulatory, legal and taxation etc. vi. Any other assistance as required not covered above would be provided subject to mutual agreement and in keeping with the exigencies of successful completion of this Mandate

WEST BENGAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE I.T.O, WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORPN. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.213/Kol/2012 of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

194A of the Act. Consequently there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source. Consequently no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We therefore direct the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

iv. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.58,121/- on wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 1,94,958/-. In order to understand issue under consideration, it would be appropriate to bring on record the facts of the case in brief. The appellant is a non- banking financial company. In the course of its business, the appellant receives inter-corporate deposits from various entities and bodies corporate which

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

iv) The verification with regard to the withdrawal of sum of Rs. 21.80 lacs from the bank and cash payment exceeding the limit by violating the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act need to be verified. ITA No.1367/Kol/2013 A.Y 2008-09 Arabinda Roy vs. CIT-XX, Kol Page 6 v) The inherited property and its agricultural use need

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 194A of the Act is relatively applicable to the facts of the case on hand and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities relied on the case law reported in 355 ITR 94. The Ld.DR relied on the order of CIT-A. 17. Heard both the sides and perused the record. It is noticed that the assessee

M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

section 143(3) of the Act as detailed under :- 1) Assessee was holding the beneficial share of M/s Mega Resources Ltd. (MMRL for short) having more than 10% of the voting rights and accordingly the provision of sec. 2(22)(e) were attracted on the amount of loan received by assessee from MMRL. The Assessing Officer at the time

RAMNATH JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

disallowance was made by the AO in his assessment order. 6. In view of above, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act issued a show cause notice to assessee vide No. Pr.CIT-14/Kol/263/ACFPJ6190J/2016-17/8364 dated 07.02.2017 for revising the order under the provision of Section 263 of the Act. In compliance thereto, assessee submitted that the turnover from the business

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

194A, 194C, 194 H, 194- I, and 194 J either at the time of payment or at the time of giving credit to the recipient, section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam (supra) relied upon by the appellant and also in view of the ratio

ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI KISHAN SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

section 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 31.01.2014. 2. Since these two cross-appeals relate to same assessee, same Assessment Year, identical issues involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds

SHRI KISHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, on this issue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2265/Kol/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata – 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups4979 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Kol/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Cir-45, Kolkata. Vs. Shri Kishan Saraf Krishna Building, Room No.817, Govt. Place(West), Kolkata 224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – – 700 001. 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Akups 4979 C (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Assesseeby : Shri S.D Varma, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Are Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, Kolkata In Appeal No.238/Cit(A)- Xxx/Cir-45/2013-14, Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed

section 143(3)/263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 31.01.2014. 2. Since these two cross-appeals relate to same assessee, same Assessment Year, identical issues involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds