D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

56(2)(vii) of the Act. He subm the taxability of the compensation u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. He submits that the averments of its that the averments of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views of the special counsel before the Tribunal were his personal/private views and not the views

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. A sum of Rs.1,24,54,080/- was brought to tax. Disallowance

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56(2)\nof the Act is concerned we find that during the year under consideration the\nassessee received gift of the above amount from M/s Anand Akash Sureka, being\nthe father and a member of Hindu undivided family. The AO disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed part of the claim for brokerage expenses made by the assessee. f. In summary, it is respectfully submitted that based merely on an opinion of DVO without there being anything more to substantiate its conclusions an acceptance of Valuation Report submitted by the assessee that has been accepted by the Ld. AO under the discretionary powers available with

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

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 4. The assessee replied to the show-cause notice vide written submissions dated 13.01.2023, 13.02.2023 & 13.03.2023, the copies of whichare filed at pages no. 30 to 76 of the paper book annexing several documents/evidences in support of its averments and contentions that the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

vii) as income from other sources. iii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming Rs. 6,31,000/- as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act despite the said amount having already been considered in the total income of the appellant, and further erred in upholding the application of section 115BBE

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow the loss in question and hence the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not called for the details and verified the same after application of mind, is a factually

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:

56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate disallowance thereon 68,20,321/- This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4.1 On facts and circumstances of the case

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:

56,751/- Depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act 4,06,46,462/- Total 6,82,03,213/- 10% proportionate disallowance thereon 68,20,321/- This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- 4.1 On facts and circumstances of the 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 of export commission payments. It strongly emphasis that impugned foreign export payments were in the nature fee for managerial / professional or technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act requiring TDS deduction. We find no merit in Revenue’s impugned grievance. This assessee is admittedly a company manufacturing and selling electrical conductors, insulated electrical wire and cables, high

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 of export commission payments. It strongly emphasis that impugned foreign export payments were in the nature fee for managerial / professional or technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act requiring TDS deduction. We find no merit in Revenue’s impugned grievance. This assessee is admittedly a company manufacturing and selling electrical conductors, insulated electrical wire and cables, high

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]

56,04,96,630/- under the normal computation provision and Rs. 78,49,34,237/- under MAT provision. According to Ld. A.R, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had filed all the requisite details, information

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

vii b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the Revenue in this respect is unjustified and without any substance and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2.That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the Valuation Report obtained from the Income Tax registered Valuer for issue

DAMODAR DHARA, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 414/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Damodar Dhara,......................................Appellant Thekuachak, Kumarchak, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721652 [Pan: Aiupd7241C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-27(1), Haldia, Dubey House, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Midnapore (East)-721602 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, whereas the issue raised in Ground No. 2 is against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the disallowance

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the interest income which has not been charged to tax u/s 56 of the Act, leading the impugned assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue for which a show-cause notice (SCN) was issued by the ld. PCIT dated 09.02.2021. 7.1. Against this show-cause notice assessee furnished its written submission

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

56,49,228/- only to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed objections before the ld DRP who upheld the order of TPO. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. DRP and the final order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR contended that the impugned issue has been

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

vii) (b) in sub-section(2) to section 56 of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 21. The Second AO acknowledges in his order sheet as on 19.5.2016 that he had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and pursuant to which thirteen (13) share subscribing companies respective Directors had appeared before him on 30/31.05.2016, and they were examined along with their respective books of 18 Bridhi

ITO, WARD - 23(2) , HOOGHLY vs. SHRI NAVARATAN DUGAR , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2255/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

56(2)(vii)(b) read with section 64(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue relates to addition of Rs. 2