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/- is thus, added back in computing the income of the assessee.’ The directions in the earlier period being for a different financial period are not followed in view of changed legal position in the current period and the discussions supra. The objection is accordingly dismissed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. DRP assessee is in second appeal

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

199 ITR 14 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that ITA No.2620/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2010-11 ITO Wd-12(1), Kol. vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 cessation of liability for the purpose of section 41(1) means irrevocable cessation so that there is no possibility of the liability being revived in future. If there is such

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “Basant Bansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, offered a summary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “Basant Bansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, offered a summary

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

199 implies that only the recipient of the sum, i.e., the payee could seek a refund. It must therefore follow, if the Department is right, that the law requires tax to be deducted on all payments, the payer, therefore, has to deduct and pay tax, even if the so-called deduction comes out of his own pocket

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

199,406 Management support services (paid to TDK Electronic Components S.A. (‘TDK Malaga’) 2 Export of ferrites for consumption 25,710,000 NIL 3 Disallowance of provision for slow moving and 13,200,000 NIL non-moving inventory 4. Disallowance of capital work in progress 20,201,473 NIL written off relating to abandoned project 6. We first take

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

68,925 - Rs.3,14,456). The said net interest income of Rs.52,54,469/- has been offered by the assessee for tax during the relevant assessment year. Based on these facts we note that there is no interest expenses debited in the profit and loss account. After setting off interest expense with interest income, the resulted amount of Rs.52

MANAV KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

199 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 1 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Manav Kumar Saraf 3. The grounds raised by the assessee

ITO, WD. -4(1), KOLKATA vs. RAJSHREE INTEGRATED COLD CHAIN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

2 Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. ltd.,, AYs: 2012-13 obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO., failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the' case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring

M/S. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2), Kolkata, a group\nconcern of the Rashmi Group of Companies,which was also subjected to search\nu/s 132(1) of the Act in the same search proceedings. We note that the\ncoordinate bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No.\nI.T.(S.S.)A.No.53/Kol/2022 A.Y.2019-20 vide order dated 01.09.2023 involving\nthe same issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

2,50,00,000 0 11 BadrinathMinning Pvt Ltd 59,36,974 75,250 60,12,224 0 12 Sankul Retailers Private 0 74,49,572 74,49,572 0 Ltd 13 Alok Financial Services 0 8,10,000 8,10,000 0 Pvt Ltd 14 Asankul Cosmetics

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

2), undersigned personally appeared before him on 01-05-2017 and furnished then and there, whatever evidences were not available on his record vide letter dated 29-04-2017 (enclosed) and explained the evidences forwarded to him from your office. Few more detail / explanation were needed by I.T.O. which were furnished vide letter dated 05-05-2017, copies of both

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

2), Kolkata,\na group concern of the Rashmi Group of Companies,which was also\nsubjected to search u/s 132(1) of the Act in the same search proceedings.\nWe note that the coordinate bench has decided the issue in favour of the\nassessee in ITA No. I.T.(S.S.)A.No.53/Kol/2022 A.Y.2019-20 vide order\ndated 01.09.2023 involving the same issue

ACIT, CIRCLE -15(1),KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. BALJIT SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

199 (Kolkata - Trib.)J b) DCIT Kol v. Guiness Securities Ltd. [2016] 68 taxmann .com 375 (Kolkataf- Trib.) c) Lohia Securities Ltd. v. DCIT, Kol [2016] 66 taxmann.com 86 / [20jl6] 157 ITD 265 (Kolkata - Trib.). Explanation to section 73 was amended by the Finance (2