DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing a sum of Rs. 48,72,00,000/- crores on account of provision for mark to market loss both under the normal provisions and while computing book profits under section

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in the nationalised bank, we are of the view that there is no merit in Ground No.4 raised by the revenue and the same is dismissed. 48. Ground No.5 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- “5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

48,850/- which had already been disallowed by the assessee and hence no further disallowance in that regard is to be made.” Respectfully following the same, we reverse the order of DRP and direct the AO to delete the same. Hence this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. Next issue raise by assessee in ground No.4

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, LTU, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon'Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hindustan Copper Ltd…………………………………………………………………………………………….………….…Appellant Tamra Bhavan 1, Ashutosh Choudhury Avenue Kolkata - 700 019 [Pan: Aaach 7409 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu-1, Kolkata………………………………………...……….……Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu-1, Kolkata………............................................................Appellant Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd…………………………………………………………………………………………………….....Respondent Tamra Bhavan 1, Ashutosh Choudhury Avenue Kolkata - 700 019 [Pan: Aaach 7409 R] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shriamol Sudhirkamat. C1T, D/R & Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17Th , 2021

Section 37(1), he made a disallowance of Rs.4,48,12,000/ on the Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), he made

M/S HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon'Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hindustan Copper Ltd…………………………………………………………………………………………….………….…Appellant Tamra Bhavan 1, Ashutosh Choudhury Avenue Kolkata - 700 019 [Pan: Aaach 7409 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu-1, Kolkata………………………………………...……….……Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu-1, Kolkata………............................................................Appellant Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd…………………………………………………………………………………………………….....Respondent Tamra Bhavan 1, Ashutosh Choudhury Avenue Kolkata - 700 019 [Pan: Aaach 7409 R] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shriamol Sudhirkamat. C1T, D/R & Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17Th , 2021

Section 37(1), he made a disallowance of Rs.4,48,12,000/ on the Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), he made

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:

48,850/- which had already been disallowed by the assessee and hence no further disallowance in that regard is to be made. 2.3. Accordingly , the ground nos. 3.1 to 3.6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 3. The Ground No. 3 raised in Revenue’s Appeal is with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing

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:

48,850/- which had already been disallowed by the assessee and hence no further disallowance in that regard is to be made. 2.3. Accordingly , the ground nos. 3.1 to 3.6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 3. The Ground No. 3 raised in Revenue’s Appeal is with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while computing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2011-12. The Revenue is very very fair

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

48. As regards the Ground No. 7, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

disallowing a sum of Rs. 48,72,00,000/- crores on account of provision for mark to market loss both under the normal provisions and while computing book profits under section

SPEED & MOVERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BEHALA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) on account of electricity, power and fuel charges to Rs.3,51,300/-. Similarly he found that out of the business promotion expenses of Rs.1,48

SRI NAND KISHORE KHEMANI,KOLKATA vs. THE C.I.T KOLKATA - III, KOLKATA

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

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

48(i), the ld. counsel for the assessee has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to how the said expenditure is in the nature of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of asset. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 directing the Assessing Officer to disallow

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing a sum of Rs. 48,72,00,000/- crores on account of provision for mark to market loss both under the normal provisions and while computing book profits under section

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(1) of the Act. It nowhere provides that once the assessee has filed a return of income within due date and such return includes a claim for deduction, then the quantum of deduction permissible as per law cannot be subsequently altered or modified. We find that for the AY 2008-09 the assessee had filed its return