M/S KALYANI BARTER (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 14A read with Rule 80 were not applicable in its case. In this regard, the !TAT, Mumbai in DC!T Vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. in ITA 6711/Mum/2011 has held that since taxpayers did not retain Shares with the intention of earning dividend income and such income was incidental to business of sales of Shares, no disallowance of expenditure

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

disallowance made by the A.O. under section 14A read with Rule 8D and sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal is accordingly allowed while ground no 1 of the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed”. The aforesaid decision rendered for A.Y. 2010-11 was followed by the Tribunal to decide

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , 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

disallowance made by the A.O. under section 14A read with Rule 8D and sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). Ground no. 3 of the assessee's appeal is accordingly allowed while ground no 1 of the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed”. The aforesaid decision rendered for A.Y. 2010-11 was followed by the Tribunal to decide

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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

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

disallowed the impugned provision on the ground that it is liable to be allowed in the year when it is actually incurred, and because assessee had shown the total income of Rs.41,92,05,032 from TNRDC for road construction on receipt basis. This aspect of the matter has been Challenged before the CIT(A), who held that

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 ]

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is, therefore, deleted.” This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It emerges first of all that the India-Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement contains a protocol forming part of case records before us at pages 14 to 15. This protocol clause with reference

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)

Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3)of the Act, that the said provisions are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings of the parties. The necessity of disallowance comes into operation only when default of the nature specified

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

disallowed for deduction. A sum of Rs.8,85,68,539/- is thus, added back in computing the income of the assessee.’ The directions in the earlier period being for a different financial period are not followed in view of changed legal position in the current period and the discussions supra. The objection is accordingly dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

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

disallowance of a sum of Rs.57,84,206, being depreciation claimed under section 32 in respect of assets purchased and put to use for a period

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

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

disallowance of a sum of Rs.57,84,206, being depreciation claimed under section 32 in respect of assets purchased and put to use for a period

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowing an amount of Rs. 7,60,21,803/- on account of lease rental on the contention that the principal repayment amounted to capital expenditure not allowable as business expense. DRP Directions In view of factual issues involved and applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s I.C.D.S

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:

disallow the same on the contention that under finance lease, the lessee is the owner of the leased assets and principal repayment component of lease rental represents payment for purchase of leased assets and thus should be treated as capital expenditure. The ld DRP after considering the facts in detail and applying the ratio laid down

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:

disallow the same on the contention that under finance lease, the lessee is the owner of the leased assets and principal repayment component of lease rental represents payment for purchase of leased assets and thus should be treated as capital expenditure. The ld DRP after considering the facts in detail and applying the ratio laid down

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1055& C.O. No.73/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Universal Cables Ltd. 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu3547P (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Respondent/ Cross-Objector)

section 14A r.w.r. 8D disallowances. It has come on record that the assessee’s exempt income amount is Rs.18,69,380/- only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) held that the impugned disallowance cannot exceed the amount of exempt income itself. Coupled with this, there

M/S. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

206 (Mad) while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment purposes

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

206 (Mad) while distinguishing trading and investment, observed that the intention of the assessee is relevant to determine whether an assessee is carrying on the business in shares or investments. The initial intention of the assessee in the instant case is proved beyond doubt from the manner of maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. (1) for investment purposes

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 14A r.w.r. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer is not warranted. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 4.4.In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue (in Ground No.2) is dismissed. 5.Ground No.3 raised