PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and culled out the principles laid down in the judgments as below : “24. In Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. ( 2 Supra), the Supreme Court held that a bare reading of Sec.263 makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suomotu under it, is the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

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

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

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallow such expenses claimed by the assessee in the re-assessment proceedings, which was not done. Therefore, not only clause (a) of Explanation (2) of sub-section (1) of section 263

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194G is highly debatable on which one possible view was taken by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under section 143(3)/144 wherein no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was made by him. It is well settled position of law that when a possible view has been taken

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

1) of section 263. 9. The ld. CIT,D.R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 to show that even though the appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) was stated to be pending 20 Assessment Year

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 263 of the Act. 1. The notice under reply is proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that: A. Rate at which ROM were sold by our client needs to be substituted with the average sale price as per M.B. Shah Commission Report. 5 I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. B. Disallowance

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

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

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

263 to revise the assessment on five issues:- (i) Applicability of section 56(2)(x) on acquisition of leasehold land & building; (ii) Disallowance of expenditure on scientific research u/s 35(1

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 to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment completed appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in accordance with the provisions of Section 263(1

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallow the proportionate depreciation on aircraft in terms of section 38(2) of the Act vide his section 263 order dated 30.1.2013. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 529/Kol/2013- M/s. EIH Limited 3 C-AM 3.2. The Learned AR argued that during the relevant previous year, the assessee maintained two aircrafts bearing Registration

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 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Britannia Industries Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Income-Tax Vs. Shakespeare Sarani, Circle-1 Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb2066P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-1 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev5/2021- 22/1040498620(1) Dated 09.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

1) and section 35(2AB) of the Act which ought to have been disallowed by the ld. AO. Thus, on the basis of forming this opinion in respect of the two issues, Ld. Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263

DIAMOND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

disallowed under sec 37 of the Act can be claimed as deductible under sec 80G of the Act. Revisionary assessment proceedings cannot be initiated unless the conjunctive conditions of section 263 of the Act are satisfied Section 263(1

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed in his assessment order. The A.O. has passed the assessment order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made in the instant case. Clause (a) of Explanation-2 to section 263(1

ONKAR SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGICAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

1) of the Act, according to the Ld. CIT(E) the exemption under section 11 of the Act was not available to the assessee. The AO failed to consider this issue in the assessment order and had allowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the AO was found to be erroneous

BALAKALYAN CHOWDARY MARATHU,KADAPA vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

263 of the Act. It may be true that the allowance in question was received by the assessee pursuant to his employment contract with a company which was tax resident in India. It may also be true that the contract of employment was executed in India. However for such fact alone it cannot be held that assessee’s right

MAHESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. CIT(IT&TP), KOLKATA

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

263 of the Act. It may be true that the allowance in question was received by the assessee pursuant to his employment contract with a company which was tax resident in India. It may also be true that the contract of employment was executed in India. However for such fact alone it cannot be held that assessee’s right