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

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

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

SHRI DINESH KUMAR GHOSH ,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38, , MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2

section 40A(3) of the Act. ” 8. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above referred case, to the facts of the case on hand, we delete the entire disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, as factually and legally incorrect. In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 40(a)(i) of the Act could not 13 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 be made applicable in the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to the prayer of the Learned

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 40(a)(i) of the Act could not 13 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 be made applicable in the facts of the instant case. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 6.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to the prayer of the Learned

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

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

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

4)(i) of the Act. 24. The AO was however of the view that subsequent to the decision rendered by the tribunal referred to in the earlier paragraph, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. 83 Taxman 349 (SC) held that the word “derived from “ has narrower connotation as compared to the words “attributable

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, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 195 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). Hence no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for the same

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]

4 in ITA 1513/Kol/2008 and ITA 1914/Kol/2008 11. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, there was disallowance of the expense u/s. 14A of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions restricted the disallowance to 1% of the dividend income because the provisions of Rule

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]

4 in ITA 1513/Kol/2008 and ITA 1914/Kol/2008 11. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, there was disallowance of the expense u/s. 14A of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions restricted the disallowance to 1% of the dividend income because the provisions of Rule

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

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)

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 Meets. However, instead of performing all these activities itself, the company used

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

section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.03.2015, the total income of the assessee company was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 4,80,68,13,340/- after making the following additions: 1. Disallowance of depreciation & Addl. Depreciation 8,22,02,645/- 2. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation expenses 5,48,910/- 3. Disallowance of Gift expenses

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

4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds :- “ 1. For that the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") confirming disallowance of Rs. 94,395/- under Rule 8D(2)(i) and Rs. 5,12,253 under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income