M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Properties; [2012] 206 Taxmann 584 (Bom.) 6 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Viswas Promoters P. Ltd. v. ACIT; [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Madras)  Madanlal Gupta vs. CIT 9 Taxmann.com 235  ACIT vs. Ashiana Amar Developers, 178 TTJ 424 (ITAT Kolkata)  CBDT Circular No. 205/3/2001/ITA-II dated 4th May 2001  Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature; (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other 99debt arising during the course

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

161,905,984 175,633,946 Export support services 1c - 30,295,333 40,199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

housing loan which was taken by trustee. Finally the Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of AO. On the other hand, Ld. AR accepted the arguments of assessee that Dr. M Ghosh earned an income of ₹24.40 lakh wherein the fund of assessee was involved. Ld. AR further submitted that the addition of exemption can be denied to assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house Coopers as part of the documents and information kept and maintained by it. Rule 10D(e) casts a responsibility on the assessee to keep and maintain information and documents regarding description of functions performed by the assessee and its AEs involved in the international transactions. In this context, reference is made to Part-IV of the Report submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house Coopers as part of the documents and information kept and maintained by it. Rule 10D(e) casts a responsibility on the assessee to keep and maintain information and documents regarding description of functions performed by the assessee and its AEs involved in the international transactions. In this context, reference is made to Part-IV of the Report submitted

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

house property' is a loss, in respect of the assessment years commencing on 1st day of April, 1995 and the 1st day of April, 1996, such loss shall be first set off under sub- sections (1) and (2) and thereafter the loss referred to in section 71A shall be set off in the relevant assessment year in accordance with

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

161 of 2013 dated 23.12.2013 also took identical view. The aforesaid two decisions by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court are binding on this Tribunal. Hence, we hold that the action of the AO in directly embarking on Rule 8D(2) of the rules was not proper and hence the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

House, 4th Floor, P-7, Chowrnghee Square, 8th Floor, 31, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 Kolkata-69 001 [PAN No.AABCG 1614 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-Sr-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-08-2018 घोषणा

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

House, 4th Floor, P-7, Chowrnghee Square, 8th Floor, 31, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700 Kolkata-69 001 [PAN No.AABCG 1614 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None आवेदक क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-Sr-DR राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-08-2018 घोषणा

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

housing project. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued that the issue of the assessee’s appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of Shriram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann 398 (Chennai Trib.). 8. We have gone through the precedents cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee and found that

LOHIA SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 487/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 M/S. Lohia Securities Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata Pan: Aaacl 5834A (Appellant) (Respondent)

161 ITR 413 (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case nor it is argued that the said decision of this Court has been overruled. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted and the same is dismissed. The application being 1982 of 2010 is disposed of. Certified photostat copy of this order be made available

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

1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 2064 /KOL/ 2014 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Income Tax Officer,..................................................................Appellant Ward-5(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8th Floor, Room No. 15, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. Fortune Interfinance Limited,......................................Respondent 19, British Indian

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1 to 161 and submitted that the assessee is maintaining two portfolios one for stock in trade and other for investment. Our attention was drawn on pages 56 to 59 of paper book where the details for Short Term and Long Term profit were furnished. 7. We find from the aforesaid discussion and submission that the AO has treated STCG

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1 to 161 and submitted that the assessee is maintaining two portfolios one for stock in trade and other for investment. Our attention was drawn on pages 56 to 59 of paper book where the details for Short Term and Long Term profit were furnished. 7. We find from the aforesaid discussion and submission that the AO has treated STCG

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

section 14A of the Act the same is liable to be deleted. 3. For that further and in any event and without prejudice to the above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is excessive and unreasonable and beyond business expediency. 4. For that further and in event and without prejudice to the grounds

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

section 14A of the Act the same is liable to be deleted. 3. For that further and in any event and without prejudice to the above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is excessive and unreasonable and beyond business expediency. 4. For that further and in event and without prejudice to the grounds