BHIRINGHEE MINING & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT - BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 29.11.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

viii) It has to be appreciated that presumption u/s 292C applies to\nperson on whom action u/s 132 or 133A has taken place. In such a\ncase the presumptionof such alleged material/statement can be\nconsidered and invoked as per provisions of sec. 292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated

KARAN POLYMERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment order dated 30th November, 2018 passed

SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)-14, SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Kolkata, for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows. (1) That

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TRANSAFE SERVICES LTD, KOLKATA

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

delay of condonation. Thus, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances, i.e. in this case deserves to be considered and same is condoned. We admit to hearing both the appeals. 3. Before carving out the specific issue of the case let us understand the brief history of the case. The assessee in the present case is a Limited

ITO WARD 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a public limited company carrying business of Non-Banking Finance company, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 30,26,790/-. The assessment was completed by DCIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata by making an addition

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that