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

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

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

271(1)(c ) of the Act that the aforesaid issues had reached the corridors of several tribunals and courts and that itself goes to prove that the issues are highly debatable and involves substantial question of law. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on a legal issue. I.T.A. No. 1864/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR- 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 195 of the Act. We find that this has got no bearing on the determination of ALP of the subject mentioned payment in the scheme of transfer pricing. Since the ld AR before us had stated that what is paid is only share of AE pursuant to revenue sharing arrangement and not royalty, this aspect deserves to be remanded

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 195 of the Act. We find that this has got no bearing on the determination of ALP of the subject mentioned payment in the scheme of transfer pricing. Since the ld AR before us had stated that what is paid is only share of AE pursuant to revenue sharing arrangement and not royalty, this aspect deserves to be remanded

VIDYA FINVEST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

195/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. None appeared on behalf of the revenue at the time of hearing but a consolidated application consists of fourteen cases seeking adjournment for hearing is placed on record, which we have rejected and after hearing the Ld. AR and considering the material

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.12.2017, 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 and dated 26.06.2018 for AY 2010-11. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 2. In the two appeals on the quantum there are common issues relating to challenging the validity of reopening

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271D and 271E read with Section 274 of the Act.” Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 3.2. With this finding he set aside to the AO for detailed verification of cash transaction to the tune of Rs. 5,21,17,075/-. 3.3. It needs to be mentioned

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

u/s 234B of the Act 5. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. AO / DRP erred in imposing interest under section 234B of the Act on the appellant, for default in payment of advance tax, without appreciating the fact that the appellant, being a non-resident, was not liable to pay advance

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

u/s 234B of the Act 5. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. AO / DRP erred in imposing interest under section 234B of the Act on the appellant, for default in payment of advance tax, without appreciating the fact that the appellant, being a non-resident, was not liable to pay advance

ABN AMRO BANK N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

195(1) section 40(a)(i) had no application.” Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, this ground for various asst years (supra) is allowed. 6. CLAIM OF REFUND OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER BRANCHES ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 ADDITIONAL GROUND

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

195 in the following manner: 5 I.T.A. No. 572/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dongfang Electric Corporation Offshore supply: A sum equivalent to 2.5% of gross receipts under this contract(s) was deemed to be income for the purpose of determination of rate at which tax was required to be deducted at source. Accordingly

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

195 in the following manner: 5 I.T.A. No. 572/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & I.T.A. No. 487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dongfang Electric Corporation Offshore supply: A sum equivalent to 2.5% of gross receipts under this contract(s) was deemed to be income for the purpose of determination of rate at which tax was required to be deducted at source. Accordingly

ABU MANSUR ALI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Abu Mansur Ali, Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata, Raigachi, Azadnagar, Rajarhat, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M.Bye Pass Kolkata-700135 Kasba, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajwpa 0693 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Central-Ii, Kolkata In Appeal No.94/Cc-Xviii/Cit(A)C-Ii/11-12, Dated 19.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That A Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Were Conducted In The M/S.Kaushalya Infrastructure Group Of Cases On 26/27.03.2009 & On Subsequent Dates (At Certain Spots). This Included Search Also At The Residence Of The Assessee At Vill: Raigachi, Azad Nagar, Rajarhat, 24 Pgs(N), Kolkata-136 By Virtue Of A Search Warrant Dated 25.03.2009. During The Course Of Search Some Diaries & Documents/Papers Vide Id Marks Ama/L To Ama/7 As Per Annexure-'A' Were Found & Seized. Besides, Cash Of Rs.8,300/ Was Also Found But Hot Seized Vide Anneure-2

section 271 (1) (c) and the provisions of sec. 271AAA were not applicable since the tax payer was not an assessee within the meaning of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of search. 3. For that in view of the provisions contained in IT. Act, 1961 making clear distinction between the word "Person" and word "Assessee

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

195. 3.10 In the light of the proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as above, in respect of the issue of examining the genuineness of subscription to the share capital of a company, vis-a-vis, section 68 of the Act, let me examine the facts of the case before me. In the present

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

195. 3.10 In the light of the proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as above, in respect of the issue of examining the genuineness of subscription to the share capital of a company, vis-a-vis, section 68 of the Act, let me examine the facts of the case before me. In the present

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 143(1) passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. After considering the rectification order passed by the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru, the TDS of Rs. 19,15,979/- was not allowed by the A.O., CPC since the data of TDS deducted by M/s Cox and King Limited was not fully available