DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 115JB of the Act. Hence this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Second issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,60,337/- relating to advance written off in the year under consideration. 10. During the year under

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 115JB of the Act. Hence this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Second issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,60,337/- relating to advance written off in the year under consideration. 10. During the year under

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 115JB of the Act. Hence this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Second issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,60,337/- relating to advance written off in the year under consideration. 10. During the year under

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

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

245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) and, (iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged

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

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

245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) and, (iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged

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

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

245 ITR 428/112 Taxman 61 (SC) and, (iii) Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [20097314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422 (SC). ITA No.217-219/K/18 & CO 94-96/K/18 A.Y.s 11-12 to 13-14 DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Page 30 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The respondent- assessee is engaged

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STAR PAPER MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

245 ITR 428. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim of the assessee for provision of leave encashment relying on the Clause (f) inserted in Section

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]

245 ITR 428 (SC). In response to this, the Learned DR argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its interim order dated 8.5.2009 had held in the concluding paragraph that the assessee shall pay tax as if the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act is there in the statute and the ld AO should disallow

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]

245 ITR 428 (SC). In response to this, the Learned DR argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its interim order dated 8.5.2009 had held in the concluding paragraph that the assessee shall pay tax as if the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act is there in the statute and the ld AO should disallow

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

245-247Kol/2025 Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited January 245425 245425 508002 15/02/2020 28/04/2020 2020 February 245425 245425 508002 15/03/2020 28/04/2020 2020 March 248481 248481 511248 15/05/2020 16/09/2020 2020 4. The Assessing Officer, being CPC, Bengaluru, has erred in disallowing the expenditure under Section

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

245-247Kol/2025 Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited January 245425 245425 508002 15/02/2020 28/04/2020 2020 February 245425 245425 508002 15/03/2020 28/04/2020 2020 March 248481 248481 511248 15/05/2020 16/09/2020 2020 4. The Assessing Officer, being CPC, Bengaluru, has erred in disallowing the expenditure under Section

TWOPIRADIAN INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)-KOL, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

245-247Kol/2025 Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited January 245425 245425 508002 15/02/2020 28/04/2020 2020 February 245425 245425 508002 15/03/2020 28/04/2020 2020 March 248481 248481 511248 15/05/2020 16/09/2020 2020 4. The Assessing Officer, being CPC, Bengaluru, has erred in disallowing the expenditure under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is also deleted in view of the discussion above. The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the addition on merit are accordingly allowed.” Therefore in my considered opinion, since purchases were never disputed by the AO in earlier years, the AO cannot doubt the sale & its proceeds. The share purchasing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is also deleted in view of the discussion above. The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the addition on merit are accordingly allowed.” Therefore in my considered opinion, since purchases were never disputed by the AO in earlier years, the AO cannot doubt the sale & its proceeds. The share purchasing

EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

245 ITR 428. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim of the assessee for provision of leave encashment relying on the Clause (f) inserted in Section

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.4,60,032/- ( Rs. 1,11,321 + Rs. 3,48,711) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF by wrongly invoking provision of section 43B of the Act which is relating to employer's contribution to PF while employees contribution to PF is governed by section 36(1)(va) read with section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NEWDEAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

245 Current Assets 56,57,897 30,59,798 During the assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee had borrowed fund which was utilized for the investment in shares. A comparison of the investment and borrowed fund between balance sheet of 31st March 2006 and 31st March 2007 respectively reveals that the entire amount of borrowed fund has been utilized