ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) CO., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1686/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co. [Pan: Aaffm 2988 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,84,663/- The assessee was asked to produce the evidence of deduction of tax at soruce in respect of hire charges as they would get attracted as per section 194I

M/S NEW MODERN CONSTRUCTION,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WD-3, SURI, BIRBHUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

68 of the Act. 12. During the course of scrutiny proceedings the AO found that there was cash payments recorded in the books of account of the assessee. The AO found that cash amounts have been received from M/s. Indure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and M/s. Pobi Technologies & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Under show cause, the assessee through a letter

ITO, WARD - 34(4) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GODHULI DEALCOM LLP, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

68. 22 A.Y. 2015-2016 & C.O. No. 16/KOL/2021 (in ITA No. 2307/KOL/2018) Godhuli Dealcom LLP 28. On going through section 52 of the Companies Act, 2013, we find that there are specific provisions for the application of Security Premium received by the Company on the issue of its share capital, but nowhere in the provision of section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,963/- under section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering the appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society, which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. 5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF (HUF), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 710/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 194I of the Act. From the submission, it is found that while making payment as Rent, in the following cases, there is shortfall in deduction of tax at source : Name of Amount paid/payable Amount on which Tax Difference Party during the year deducted at source 1 2 3 (2-3) Dalmia

DCIT, CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

194I and not 194C. The AO noted that the assessee had made a distinction between taking hoarding on rent for use and taking the right to display of advertisement on hoarding. It stated that payments are being made to commercially exploit the right to display and not using the hoarding sites. However the distinction is stretching the common understanding

SRI SUTANU MAHANTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

194I and 194C as payment made to the licensor or Licensee to create a firewall which will deflect any claim of chargeability of the TDS from the rentals on payments which have escaped TDS. The assessee has purposefully never produced any books of account so that the statement filed is not verified / ascertained. Since majority of the notice

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SALTEE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

68,110/- after making certain disallowance / additions to the total income of the assessee. 3. The first issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹9,17,076/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of non deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS for short

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

68,762/-. 4. The records of the assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was examined by the Principal CIT and on such examination, he found the following errors in the order of the A.O. passed under section 147/144/143(3) which according to him, were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: “The total

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

68 (ITAT) (Del) Marketing and Development Expenses During the concerned assessment year various foreign remittances have been made to foreign vendors towards marketing and development services. The exact nature of service provided by each vendor is explained as follows. a) CORNELL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF H. ITHACA NEW YORK, 14850, USA – The vendor is an education institution and provides learning material

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

68 (ITAT) (Del) Marketing and Development Expenses During the concerned assessment year various foreign remittances have been made to foreign vendors towards marketing and development services. The exact nature of service provided by each vendor is explained as follows. a) CORNELL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF H. ITHACA NEW YORK, 14850, USA – The vendor is an education institution and provides learning material

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom