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:

section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate

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:

section 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate

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

253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct

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

253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct

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

253/-, being 90% of\nthe actual disallowance made by the AO of Rs.45,43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct

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

2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent of ₹40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed

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

2,06,28,623/- towards running, repairs, maintenance of two aircrafts. The assessee also claimed depreciation for ₹3,26,93,476/- only in respect of aircrafts. However, AO held that 10% of such expenses are not connected with the business of the assessee. Accordingly, he made the disallowance of ₹53,32,210/- including the depreciation for 10% of total expenditure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

253 ITR 430 are distinguishable from the facts of the instant as the assessee in that case claimed the bad debts in the reassessment proceedings. The relevant questions before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court were as under : “(2) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the bad debts for the asst. yr. 1981-82 were written

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)

2) Shri Amit Kumar - Rs.8,32,343/- 3) Shri Rajiv Kumar- Rs. 4,16,137/- However, the above notices were returned unserved by the postal authority and accordingly AO made addition. We note that for marketing and selling the insurance products, the company has to perform various activities which include Lead Generation Activities, Direct Mailers Distributions, Road Shows and Customer

JB COMMERCIAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of Rs. 94,395/- under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rs. 5,12,253 under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") aggregating to Rs. 6,06,648/-under section

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 14A made by the AO, of Rs. 3,61,302/-, includes Rs. 1,71,253/- under Rule 8D (2) (ii), and Rs. 1,90,049/- under Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Sri Manindra Mohan Mazumdar Assessment Year: 2009-10 So far the disallowance

M/S KEVENTER AGRO LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

Section 41(1) of the Act. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order for A.Y.2005-06 has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT which is pending for adjudication. Accordingly the AO treated the amount of sales tax incentive for Rs. 2

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KEVENTER AGRO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

Section 41(1) of the Act. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order for A.Y.2005-06 has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT which is pending for adjudication. Accordingly the AO treated the amount of sales tax incentive for Rs. 2

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

disallowed assessee’s payments made to the District Judge Alipore for and on behalf of Kolkata Port Trust (KTP) amounting to ₹563.44 lacs on account of non- deduction of TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

disallowed assessee’s payments made to the District Judge Alipore for and on behalf of Kolkata Port Trust (KTP) amounting to ₹563.44 lacs on account of non- deduction of TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

disallowed assessee’s payments made to the District Judge Alipore for and on behalf of Kolkata Port Trust (KTP) amounting to ₹563.44 lacs on account of non- deduction of TDS. The CIT(A)’s relevant discussion under challenge reads as follows:- “12. DECISION: 1. I have carefully examined the contentions of the Ld. ARs and perused the impugned order passed

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

disallowance of Rs. 2,65,75,525/- on account of downward adjustment made to the value of raw materials purchased ownward adjustment made to the value of raw materials purchased ownward adjustment made to the value of raw materials purchased from related parties u/s 92CA of the Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment order from related parties u/s 92CA