JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

b) of that sub-section by way of writing off such liability in his accounts." (Underlining ours) 13. Explanation 1 which was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1997 is not attracted to the present case since there was no writing off of the liability to pay the sundry creditors in the assessee's accounts. The question has to be considered de hors Explanation

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri, M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2001-02 ACIT, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/s. M/s Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [PAN No.AAAAB 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal

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

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

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

b) of section 43B. According to it, if any sum towards employer's contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees is actually paid

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRABIR ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkey & Dr. A. L. Saini

B. 10 I.T.A.No.1407/Kol/2015 & C.O.No.60/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nirupam& Co. We note that the assessee has been showing the same as liability which was existing in the books since 1997-98 and was carried forward as on 31.03.2012. The AO issued notices, however, the notices returned back unserved and the AO was of the opinion that the liability

DAMODHAR CEMENT & SLAG LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH ACC LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA,

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

41(1). 2(a). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on critical spares of Rs.11,25,490/-. 2(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 2(a) taken here-in- above

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B= Rs.72,38,59,254/-(0pening Value of Investment Rs. 76,95,98,999/- and Closing value of Investment Rs.67,81,19,510/- in this case) = the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

B= Rs.72,38,59,254/-(0pening Value of Investment Rs. 76,95,98,999/- and Closing value of Investment Rs.67,81,19,510/- in this case) = the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first

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

1 per ticket. The discounted rate of invoice value of the tickets of Rs.3,800 crores is shown as Rs.2,800 crores i.e. (74% of the face value). The Royal Govt. of Bhutan is to declare and shown to have declared prize winnings at 70% of the gross lottery size i.e. (70% of Rs.3800 crores) which is Rs.2660 crores. Facts

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

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

B) It is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; and C) A reliable estimate can be made out of the obligation. If the above conditions are made, provision should be recognized in the financial statements. It is an accepted principle that the salary/wage accrued daily, weekly, monthly

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SONODYNE TELEVISION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 330/Kol/2016 Assessment Year :2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sonodyne Television Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aaecs 7096 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed u/s 41(1) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the liability on account of sundry creditors was very much appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee. Such liability of sundry

DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowance were carried out, those may be rectified. Hence, the CBDT itself accepted the position that even returns filed u/s.139 is to be accepted. It means that it has enlarged its scope of section 139 of the Act, which includes provisions of section 139(4) also. Here provision of section 139(4) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 lays down that any person

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

41,07,380/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 04.09.2014, which was duly served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued a questionnaire by way of a notice under section 142(1). During the course of assessment proceeding, it revealed to the ld. Assessing

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

41,28,290/- as Dividend Income and claimed total exempted income of Rs.55,68,90,790/-. The expenditure incurred on exempted income from "Investment on Securities" and "Tax Free Bonds are debited in the taxable business income which is liable to be debited in the taxable business income which is liable to be disallowed as per section 14A of Income

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

b) of the Act being an independent section is not bound by the deeming provisions of section 50 of the Act. The nature of capital asset, whether short term or long term, has to be determined applying the provisions of section 2(42A) and section 2(29B) of the Act. Hence we hold that the depreciable assets which had been