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

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

houses within country and abroad. The ICC was set up with the sole purpose of promotion and protection of Indian business and industry and was duly registered u/s 12A of the Act as a charitable association with the main objects as set out in Clause 3 of MAA of the assessee company as “to promote and protect the trade, commerce

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal

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

253 ITR 593 (Supra).Reading of the proviso to Section 142 is very clear that the legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OUTOTEC GMBH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

House P. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) [157 ITR 86], Modern Threads (India) Limited vs DCIT (Jaipur ITAT) [69 ITD 115], DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. [39 Taxmann.com 88]. In support of its contention, the assessee had also relied upon certain clauses of contracts of supply of imported designs and drawings for Bhushan Power and Steel Plant – Pellet Plant]. However

OUTOTEC GMBH,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, IT - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

House P. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) [157 ITR 86], Modern Threads (India) Limited vs DCIT (Jaipur ITAT) [69 ITD 115], DIT vs Infrasoft Ltd. [39 Taxmann.com 88]. In support of its contention, the assessee had also relied upon certain clauses of contracts of supply of imported designs and drawings for Bhushan Power and Steel Plant – Pellet Plant]. However

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

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

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

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

PRICE WATERHOUSE COPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

House of Lords held that the payment made was of capital nature.” 2.5.4. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) had held as under:- “14. Section 3 of the scheme describes entitlement to the industrial promotion assistance and the same is also

D.C.I.T, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

House of Lords held that the payment made was of capital nature.” 2.5.4. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) had held as under:- “14. Section 3 of the scheme describes entitlement to the industrial promotion assistance and the same is also

D.C.I.T, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT., KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

House of Lords held that the payment made was of capital nature.” 2.5.4. We also find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Rasoi Ltd reported in (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal) had held as under:- “14. Section 3 of the scheme describes entitlement to the industrial promotion assistance and the same is also

SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT -3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Shree Ganesh V/S. The Cit, Kolkata-3 Jewellery House Ltd Kolkata Pan: Aagcs 7343P .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide M. No. CIT-3/Kol/263/2014-15/6520-22 dated 26.03.2015. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Central Circle-VIII, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 22.03.2013. Shri Kaushal Kumar Surana, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Ld. Departmental

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

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

253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

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

253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate