DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

vii)”. 20. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of its claim for deduction on account of diminution in the value of shares was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the following submissions were made on its behalf before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of its case on this

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

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly\nerred in law and not justified by upholding the application of Surcharge @\n5% amounting to Rs.7,19,847/- though no surcharge is applicable to co-\noperative societies for the A.Y. 2013-14,\n11. THAT your petitioner

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

section 143(3) of the Act wherein the status of the assessee is taken as company without any basis. Change of status is not permissible under the law unless and until a cogent reasoned order is passed on the same. Here, the assessee's change of status from a cooperative society to company is without any basis. Hence

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n10. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has grossly\nerred in law and not justified by upholding the application of Surcharge @\n5% amounting to Rs.7,19,847/- though no surcharge is applicable to co-\noperative societies for the A.Y. 2013-14.\n11. THAT your petitioner

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

36. It was submitted that in the case of the Assessee, GRSE has not gained any technical knowledge, skill, etc. as a result of service provided to it, which can be subsequently utilized by it. Thus, payments made by it, for services provided do not fall within the scope of FTS, as laid out in Article

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

36. It was submitted that in the case of the Assessee, GRSE has not gained any technical knowledge, skill, etc. as a result of service provided to it, which can be subsequently utilized by it. Thus, payments made by it, for services provided do not fall within the scope of FTS, as laid out in Article

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,51,112/-. As declared in the said return, the assessee-company had entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) during the year under consideration:- 1. 47.87 crores TNMM & CUP Import of equipment and spares (after set off of a credit note received of Rs.11.87 crores on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 2. Commission income earned

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,51,112/-. As declared in the said return, the assessee-company had entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) during the year under consideration:- 1. 47.87 crores TNMM & CUP Import of equipment and spares (after set off of a credit note received of Rs.11.87 crores on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 2. Commission income earned

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,51,112/-. As declared in the said return, the assessee-company had entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) during the year under consideration:- 1. 47.87 crores TNMM & CUP Import of equipment and spares (after set off of a credit note received of Rs.11.87 crores on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 2. Commission income earned

DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am I.T. A. No. 297/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11

1)(vii) of the Act and requirement of clause (i) of sub-section (2) of sec. 36 of the Act have been fulfilled and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we dismiss

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

36 business income of the service provider. It is pertinent to note that the Ld CIT(A) in the case of the assessee itself in the A.Y.2006-07 followed by subsequent years has categorically held that the payments to foreign parties on account of advertisement outside India should not be taxable in India as per the provisions of section

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:

68,20,321/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 6,82,03,213/- ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in assessee’s own case in EIH Limited vs. DCIT (2015) I.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2006 for A.y. 2002-03. 4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book

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:

68,20,321/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 6,82,03,213/- ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in assessee’s own case in EIH Limited vs. DCIT (2015) I.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2006 for A.y. 2002-03. 4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

68,94,820 towards Net 2 M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 Present Value of Broken Area(NPV). The said payment had been made to the Divisional Forest Officer in pursuance of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and as per Demand Notice dated 24.11.05 from the Divisional Forest Officer and as per Order dated 14-16.02.2005 issued

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

36) companies to the tune of Rs. 20.54 cr., without any enquiry is arbitrary exercise of power for which there is no sanction of law and so is untenable. According to him, the assessment is that of AY 2012-13 and the amendment of section 68 of the Act took place, wherein provision of bringing in the share premium

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

68,51,648/- as not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 7.2. The ld CIT(A) observed that though the engagement letter was issued prior to 31.3.2008, the services were rendered only in Asst Year 2009-10 which is evident from the invoices raised by the said parties on the assessee and accordingly the expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

68,51,648/- as not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 7.2. The ld CIT(A) observed that though the engagement letter was issued prior to 31.3.2008, the services were rendered only in Asst Year 2009-10 which is evident from the invoices raised by the said parties on the assessee and accordingly the expenses

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

68,90,427/- out of provisions and also written off a sum of Rs.37,02,986/- directly to the P&L Account. The AO asked the assessee whether the conditions for allowability of bad debts have been satisfied in term of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii