ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

68 of the Act. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said judgement and the same was dismissed by the HonTjle Supreme Court in ITO vs. V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC). The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,761/- section 139 Returned income under Rs.21,89,190/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 6,00,000/- section 132(4) Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti Assessed income Rs.60,33,000/- Sl. Particulars of Amount addition 1. Speculation loss Rs.28,83,322/- disallowed 2. Disallowance under Rs. 9

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,761/- section 139 Returned income under Rs.21,89,190/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 6,00,000/- section 132(4) Assessment Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 Beni Prasad Lahoti Assessed income Rs.60,33,000/- Sl. Particulars of Amount addition 1. Speculation loss Rs.28,83,322/- disallowed 2. Disallowance under Rs. 9

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

68 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of CIT(A) is confirmed and consequently the appeal of revenue is dismissed.[Para 29] 9. The AO has relied upon following case laws but the same are distinguishable on facts as under:- CIT Vs. Nupun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd [2013]350 ITR 407 (Delhi) In the above case, the AO issued

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

9 expenditure under second and third limb of Rule 8D computation involving corresponding sums of ₹90,53,109/- and ₹95,770/-; respectively. The CIT(A) has deleted only former of said two components as follows:- “3.0 Ground Nos. 4 & 5 – Section 14A: As per page 23 and 27 of the Paper Book the investment picked

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

68,539/- proposed by the Ld. AO on account of lease rental having adjudicated identical issue in favour of appellant in its own case in AY 2011-12 on the mere pretext that there was a change in legal position from AY 2012-13 and since the revenue was not allowed to challenge the DRP directions, similar relief cannot

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the assessee's income. [Para 15]” 13. We now proceed to decide the appeal. I.T.A. No.: 724/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 14. Ground nos. 1 and 10 being general in nature do not require any separate adjudication. 15. Ground no. 2 is regarding

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]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

68,894/- 2 M/s Mangalam Privahan Pvt. Ltd. 1,95,823/- ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 3 So the above expenses has been disallowed and added to the income of assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) , the assessee demonstrated that all the parties to whom the payments were made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022–23. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 08 days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

9. Per contra, the Ld CIT/DR Shri Vijay Shankar vehemently opposed the plea of the Ld. AR and contended that the Second Ld. Pr. CIT had the jurisdiction to interfere by exercising his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and pointed out to us that the words used in Section 263 does not bar in any way second

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9) of the Act, it is amply clear that requirements of the Rule 128 for claiming FTC regarding filing of form 67 before the due date specified for furnishing of the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 is mandatory in nature. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has failed to file form

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

139 of the Act on 14.09.2012 declaring Rs. 3,506/- and the original first assessment was framed by the First AO u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 21-03-2015 by making an addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 20,41,00,000/- (share capital of Rs. 43,00,000/- and premium

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus on the assessee in respect of credit found in the books was confined to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Source i.e. only the first source not the second source also

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

139 of the Act along with the refund application under section 237 of the Act, action could not have been taken under section 147/148 of the Act. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the negative, i. e. , against the revenue. " (p. 390) 11. We would arrive at this very destination even if we were to traverse

ACIT, CIR-I, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. MRS HARMEET KAUR, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

68,863/- ( 1,55,88,863+2,54,80,000). The ld AO further observed that the sale consideration value adopted by the stamp valuation 3 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur A.Yr.11-12 authority was Rs 9,60,80,616/- and whereas the assessee had declared only Rs 6,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of section

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: "Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction