M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

168, in the following terms : "9. Thus if the transaction is one of leasing/hiring/letting simpliciter under which the possession of the goods, i.e., effective and general control of the goods is to be given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of selecting the manner, time and nature of use and enjoyment, though within the framework

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed to consider the above working while working out the margin. Thus in this regard we direct the TPO to work out the PLI correctly as per the provisions of law. ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed to consider the above working while working out the margin. Thus in this regard we direct the TPO to work out the PLI correctly as per the provisions of law. ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

168 taxmann.com 383 (Madras) wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows: “In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under section 234E for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014. However, section 200A was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

168 taxmann.com 383 (Madras) wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows: “In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under section 234E for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014. However, section 200A was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

168 taxmann.com 383 (Madras) wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows: “In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only under section 234E for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014. However, section 200A was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, in the absence

M/S MERLIN RESOURCES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1239/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 04. For that the order appealed against is otherwise erroneous on facts and/or in law. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any of the grounds taken hereinbefore, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1) Ground No.1

SRI NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSH,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RG-I, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 397/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Narayan Chandra Ghosh -Vs.- J.C.I.T., Range-I, Hooghly Hooghly [Pan : Adipg 1555 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Chiradip Mahalanabish, C.A. For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 06 . 01.2017. Order Per Aby T.Varkey, Jm This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 10.12.2013 For A.Y 2008-09. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Penalty Levied By Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Which Has Been Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A) U/.S 271D Of The Act Of Rs.1,00,000/- Imposed For Contravention Of Section 269Ss Of The Act.

u/s 271D was imposed by the Jt. Commissioner was before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The very same plea that the assessee has raised before us that is the circular of the CBDT (supra) which was relied upon by the Tribunal to cancell the penalty was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as under