AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

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

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

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)

section 145(3) of the Act and he has not rejected the books of account of the assessee. Under the circumstances, adhoc disallowance is without any basis. We note that the AO has brought on record anything to disprove the claim of the assessee. The only reason that the claim expenditure could not be verified by issuing notice

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

disallowed the losses incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions conducted on the NMCE platform. Inviting our attention to the appellate orders impugned in these appeals, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee on merits in all the assessment years and aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is now in appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3 & 4 are accordingly partly allowed”. 19. We have heard the rival submissions on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and the same being not applicable to the year under consideration

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

253 holding the sales tax remission as capital receipt. Ld. counsel also drew our attention to the fact that the sales tax remission under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993and 1999 was revenue or capital has already been examined and decided by ITA T, Kolkata Bench in the following appeals: “1. In the case of ITO, Ward-1(3

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

253 holding the sales tax remission as capital receipt. Ld. counsel also drew our attention to the fact that the sales tax remission under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993and 1999 was revenue or capital has already been examined and decided by ITA T, Kolkata Bench in the following appeals: “1. In the case of ITO, Ward-1(3

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

253 ITR 749 (Guj) and Intersil India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 101 ITD 85 (Mum), and it is submitted that since the assessee is a corporate entity, there cannot be any personal expenditure. It is further submitted that in respect of AY 2005-06 the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such an addition based on ad hoc disallowance in the telephone expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TM INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

253 ITR 749 (Guj) and Intersil India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 101 ITD 85 (Mum), and it is submitted that since the assessee is a corporate entity, there cannot be any personal expenditure. It is further submitted that in respect of AY 2005-06 the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such an addition based on ad hoc disallowance in the telephone expenses

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

disallowance of foreign exchange loss on maturity of MTM contracts amounting to Rs.3,45,06,888 wit amounting to Rs.3,45,06,888 without appreciating that the Hon’ble DRP has hout appreciating that the Hon’ble DRP has directed to allow the claim of such loss on maturity of MTM contracts and that directed to allow the claim

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

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 and added to the total income of assessee. 24. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

253/- 5. Disallowance of compensation 13,80,000/- 6. Revenue expenses treated as capital 3,15,12,126/- 3. The records of the assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was examined by the Principal CIT and on such examination, he found the following errors in the order of the A.O. passed under section

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 143(3) proceedings for which he placed a copy of the assessment order dated 28.12.2006. copy of the assessment order dated 28.12.2006. 4.5. We have heard the rival 4.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, record

DCIT,CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THARUR BHASKARAN, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DCIT, CC-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NALINI BHASKARAN , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section