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

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

293 ITR 267 (Mum). The assessee also submitted that there is a recent amendment in the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 which states that there will be no disallowance

ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUDHIR SATNALIWALA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 452/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Ward 12(2), Kolkata..............................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 Sudhir Satnaniwala……………………………………………….............................Respondent 10, Raja Santosh Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Ajvps2252C] Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri M. Satnaliwala, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 10, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 30 , 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 12, Kolkata Dated 04.12.2013. 2. In Ground No 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 25,74,066/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Demand For Outstanding Municipal Taxes. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Inter Alia Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Guest House In The Name Of His Proprietary Concern, M/S. Check-In Check-Out. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 23.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 32,18,292/-. In The Profit & Loss Filed

disallowance of Rs. 4,23,745/- made by the A.O. under section 14A only to the extent of Rs. 1,09,861/-. 13. During the year under consideration, the assessee had received dividend income of Rs. 5,25,293

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA of the Act with reference to the price charged from it by the State Electricity Board. In such circumstances, we hold that, when Page 17 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. it was permissible for the assessee to sell electricity to consumers and distribution licensees

DGP STEEL STAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,ASANSOL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

293 ITR 226) and there is no question of making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). As rightly contended by the ld. D.R., this

DIDU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D does not find place in clause (f) of Sec. 115JB, and thus the disallowance u/s 14A.r.w.r. 8D cannot be made in computation of Book Profits u/s 115JB. 1.1 Reliance in regards to the above has been placed on the following judicial decisions: PCIT-vs.- Atria Power Corpn. Ltd. (2022) 142 taxmann.com

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

disallowing the payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to ₹3,14,43,700/- under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that assessee is engaged in the business of purchases and sale of land/plots. The assessee has purchase lands/plots during

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

disallowing the payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to ₹3,14,43,700/- under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that assessee is engaged in the business of purchases and sale of land/plots. The assessee has purchase lands/plots during

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance. It was vide an order sheet entry dated 30.12.2016 i.e. the same date on which he passed the assessment order, that the assessee was put to notice to explain the reasons for higher profitability. Such action of the AO done in haste amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Further, as observed supra that, the burden

TCG LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) without following the judgement Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 404 (Kolkata -Tribunal). 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata erred in not adjudicating the additional ground taken before

TCG LIFESCIENCES LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) without following the judgement Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 404 (Kolkata -Tribunal). 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata erred in not adjudicating the additional ground taken 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. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 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 In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

disallowance of Rs. 50 lacs under section 35AC of the Act in respect of donation made to OP Jindal Kalyan Gramin Sansthan for the reason that the aforesaid 3 grounds were never considered and decided in the reassessment proceedings and the limitation will start from the original assessment order which was passed on 24.12.2009. 4. For that the CIT erred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance deserves to be added for book profit adjustment is declined in view of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del)(Trib)(SB). We therefore partly accept the Revenue’s instant last issue and restore it back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh computation in above terms. The Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance deserves to be added for book profit adjustment is declined in view of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del)(Trib)(SB). We therefore partly accept the Revenue’s instant last issue and restore it back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh computation in above terms. The Revenue

DCIT, CC-III, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S APEEJAY HOUSE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1319/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-Iii, Vs. M/S Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Apeejay House, 15- Park Street 110, Shanti Pally, (3Rd Floor), Kolkata-700016 E.M.By Pass, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 1959 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Central-I, Kolkata In Appeal No.24/Cc-Iii/Cit(A)C-I/13-14, Dated 14.03.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 14.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,58,84,250/- On 28.09.2010. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) On 29.06.2011. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Disallowance U/S.14A At Rs.37,82,393/-. M/S Apeejay House Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal

293/-under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The AO thus made total disallowance of Rs.37,82,393/ - by applying section 14A read

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

disallowance of ₹ 5,30,91,623/- on account of non-deduction of tax u/s 195 of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 33. The assessee during the year has incurred certain expenses in foreign currency for ₹23,20,18,199/- only. The expenses in foreign currency include the following expenses:- i) Inspection fee ii) Advertisement in magazine