DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

928, the Legislature has explicitly clarified that issuance of corporate guarantee falls within the meaning of 'International transaction'. Therefore respectfully following the 6 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Mcleod Russel India Limited decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata (supra) and in light of the amended provisions of Section 92B, I hold that the issuance of corporate guarantee falls within

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP erred in disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to its AE was in the Appellant's own interest and consequently the same should be considered to be a shareholder activity

TUG INDOFIN PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(2),, KOLKATA

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

68 and the Assessing Officer also calculated the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D amounting to Rs.34,90,337/-. Tug Indofin Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

68,47,415 Contract receipts 87,45,69,722 (sales) Purchases [ work allotted 79,61,15,855 Commission and other 11,17,53,928 to sub contractors back to receipts back] Fright, Power & Fuel and 14,49,03093 Other income 7,76,96,586 Salary & Wages Other expenses against 7,30,20,695 Closing Stock 4,16,85,144 other

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, 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 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, as the addition was due to retrospective adjustment and did not reflect book profit for the particular year. In addition to this, the ld. AR for the assessee has relied on the following judgments :- i)Gilt Pack Ltd., 163 Taxman 331 ( MP-HC) “It was observed that

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE ANJANI SAREES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

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

928/-]. The AO accepted the mathematical error and hence the AO excluded the said amount (Rs. 1,22,985/-) from the undisclosed stock. Thus, balance amount of Rs. 2,47,24,399/- was added to the total income of the assessee as per Section 69B of the Act and thereafter the AO notes that the assessee has offered gross

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

928/-). According to the AO the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the Act which was not deducted and hence the disallowance u/s 40a(i) of the Act. 14. In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

section 10(23C) of the. The AO therefore concluded that the excess of income over expenditure of the assessee was taxable. The AO completed the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. 11. The total income was determined by the AO as follows :- ´Total income as declared by the assesse

ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARIRAM JAGDISH PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1483/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1484/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1485/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68,535/-) Rs.3,17,30,247/-. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 7. Subject to above discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed as follows:- Computation of Total Income:- Income as per return Rs. 34,013/- Add:- Undisclosed working capital (As discussed in para-6) Rs.3,17,30,247/- Total income:- Rs.3

ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARIRAM JAGDISH PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1483/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1484/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1485/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68,535/-) Rs.3,17,30,247/-. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 7. Subject to above discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed as follows:- Computation of Total Income:- Income as per return Rs. 34,013/- Add:- Undisclosed working capital (As discussed in para-6) Rs.3,17,30,247/- Total income:- Rs.3

ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HARIRAM JAGDISH PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1483/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1484/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1485/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68,535/-) Rs.3,17,30,247/-. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 7. Subject to above discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed as follows:- Computation of Total Income:- Income as per return Rs. 34,013/- Add:- Undisclosed working capital (As discussed in para-6) Rs.3,17,30,247/- Total income:- Rs.3