D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

23. This being the case, Explanation 3C is clarificatory This being the case, Explanation 3C is clarificatory This being the case, Explanation 3C is clarificatory - it explains Section 43B(d) as it originally stood and does not purport to add a new Section 43B(d) as it originally stood and does not purport to add a new Section

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU/ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

23. An amending provision can certainly give guidance to interpretation of the existing old provisions. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f. asst. yr. 2021-22 (as so held by various benches of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal) by Finance Act, 2021 even after recognizing the position of law as per section

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

section 143(1)(a) in respect of "disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return" is to be read as, for example, subject to the rider "except in a situation in which the audit report has taken a stand contrary to the law laid down

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under

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

1) Clauses (ii) and\nClauses (iii) to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-8D is warranted in the case of assessee\nand the disallowable amount is worked out according to the following\nmanner:\n9.4 The disallowance of expenditure in relation to dividend income (exempt\nincome) due to investment in shares, is being determined in accordance with\nthe provisions of Clause

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

1) Clauses (ii) and\nClauses (iii) to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-8D is warranted in the case of assessee\nand the disallowable amount is worked out according to the following\nmanner:\n9.4 The disallowance of expenditure in relation to dividend income (exempt\nincome) due to investment in shares, is being determined in accordance with\nthe provisions of Clause

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

1) Clauses (ii) and\nClauses (iii) to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-8D is warranted in the case of assessee\nand the disallowable amount is worked out according to the following\nmanner:\n9.4 The disallowance of expenditure in relation to dividend income (exempt\nincome) due to investment in shares, is being determined in accordance with\nthe provisions of Clause

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 23(1)(a) of the Act which requires to determine the same as per the guidelines of Municipal Corporation in the above facts & circumstances. Thus, the value of rent free accommodation determined by the AO on the rent fetched by the property in the earlier years for Rs. 96 lacs cannot applied in the case before us. In view

DCIT, C.C.XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRATAP PROPERTIES LTD., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

23 to 27 - ……… Pages 28 to 32 - ……. Page 33 - ….. Page 34 - ….. Pages 35 to 37 - …….. Pages 39 to 46 ……. Q. No. 19. Please go through the bunch of loose sheets marked HRV -10 and explain? Ans. This bound pages 1 to 53 relates to accounted and unaccounted transaction of M/s PPL. We find that the assessee had demonstrated the manner

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

1) Clauses (ii) and\nClauses (iii) to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-8D is warranted in the case of assessee\nand the disallowable amount is worked out according to the following\nmanner:\n9.4 The disallowance of expenditure in relation to dividend income (exempt\nincome) due to investment in shares, is being determined in accordance with\nthe provisions of Clause

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.”] “Section 194G. Any person who is responsible for paying, on or after

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

23,94,000/- as ungenuine, liabilities outstanding expenses and iii) Rs. 13,83,100/-, which are long outstanding liability for wages and (iv) Rs. 1,16,13,876/- being outstanding commission expenses of Rs.40,49,876/- and Rs. 75,64,000/- commission expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The assessee contended that

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.. 12.2. The facts in the present year are almost verbatim except variation of the amounts as available in A.Y. 2013-14 discussed in ITA No. 2448/KOL/2019. Question in dispute 13. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, from usance interest paid to the non-residents, under section 195(1). Page 13 of 20 I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Eximcorp India Private Limited. C. The assessee being responsible for paying to the non-resident usance

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

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

23,77,882/- and whereas the assessee itself had voluntarily disallowed Rs 42,48,850/-. Hence we direct the ld AO to adopt the disallowance figure of Rs 42,48,850/- which had already been disallowed by the assessee and hence no further disallowance in that regard is to be made.” Respectfully following the same, we reverse the order