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.

73, insofar as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment was intended to take effect from the date stipulated was intended to take

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

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

disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in restricting the Addition of Rs.2,97,71,945/- being expenses incurred on exempt income, while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act and directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (1

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

disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in restricting the Addition of Rs.2,97,71,945/- being expenses incurred on exempt income, while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act and directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (1

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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]

73(2) section 73A(2) or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, being the sections mentioned in section 139(3) of the Act. Section 72A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, in the case

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

73(1) and explanation 2 to section 28. He also referred to 9 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based on his interpretation of the CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based on his interpretation of the CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based

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) on account of payment of disbursed prize monies. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 75 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said I.T.A. No. 277/KOL./2016

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

73 [or sub-section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub- section (3)) of section 74 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A]. 9. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that a loss sustained during the year by an assessee under the head Business Profits & Gains, Capital Gains shall not be allowed

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, these two appeals are being disposed off through a single order. To begin with, we may briefly refer to the facts of the two cases— I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for not deducting tax at source u/s 195 of the Act, these two appeals are being disposed off through a single order. To begin with, we may briefly refer to the facts of the two cases— I.T.A. Nos.: 701 & 702/KOL/2023

ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORTUNE INTERFINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 19.03.2013. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record

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

73,122,322 Total 282,383,789 Nature of Expenditure Annexure -1 Room Reservation commission Annexure-2 Participation/Listing Fees Annexure-3 Inspection Fees Annexure-4 Advertisement in Magazine/Website listing Annexure-5 Telephone Expenses Annexure-6 Membership/Annual Subscription Annexure-7 Reimbursement of expenses at actual ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 31 Annexure

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

73, insofar as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment was intended to take effect from the date stipulated by Parliament and we see no reason to hold either that it was clarificatory or that the intent of Parliament was to give it retrospective effect. 31. The consequence is that

M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

73, insofar as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment was intended to take effect from the date stipulated by Parliament and we see no reason to hold either that it was clarificatory or that the intent of Parliament was to give it retrospective effect. 31. The consequence is that