NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

Properties (supra). As per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, 23 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. construction of even one building with several residential units of the prescribed size would constitute a 'housing project' for the purposes of s. 80-IB(10) of the Act. 30. From the aforesaid

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Properties Pvt Ltd\n10,675,616\n21.06.2011\n675,616\nChq\nYes\n10,675,616\n1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n900,000\nChq\n1,000,000\n100,000\nKolkata-700 001\nPA No. AACCA 2514J\nHarvard Trading Pvt Ltd\n4,279,123\n21.06.2011\n279,123\nChq\nNo\n4,279,123\n1,R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n360,000\nChq\n400

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. 3. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had no locus standi to question the jurisdiction of the ACIT since the assessee should have questioned the issuance of notice by the ACIT within one month

DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAAN CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1193/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit,Cc-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Maan Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccm 0388 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del) (A. Y. 1999-\n2000)\ng. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 (Delhi)\nh. ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del)]\ni. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT[(2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del)]\n7.7 It is also submitted that no disallowance

SMT. NITA SETHIA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Nita Sethia V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 5, Janki Shah Road, 1St 3(3), 110, Shanti Pally, Floor, Hastings, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700022 Poorva, E.M. Bye Pass, [Pan No.Ajwps 8335 H] Nr. Ruby Hospital, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.930/Acit,Cc-3(3)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 153A R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Her Instant Appeal. Her Former Legal Grievance Challenges Validity Of Sec. 153A Proceedings In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Found Or Seized During The Course Of Search. This Follows Her Latter Substantive Ground On Merits That The Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating Long

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SHRI JYOTI MOHAN MALL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOL - XV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2003-04

house property, capital gain and other sources for the year under consideration. A search & seizure operation was conducted on 30-06-2003 ITA No.819/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 Sh. Jyoti Mohan Mall vs. CIT, XV, Kol. Page 2 and on subsequent date on the MALL GROUP of cases. The assessee is a member of the group. During the period of search

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

b) There was an agreement for development of the said property on 01.06.2007 between the holding company and the subsidiary company, when possession was given; the said agreement was revised on 01.09.2008 and finally revised on 20.01.2009. Second revaluation of the property took place on 06.08.2011 by the registered valuer who valued the property at ₹90 Crore and the same

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

b) There was an agreement for development of the said property on 01.06.2007 between the holding company and the subsidiary company, when possession was given; the said agreement was revised on 01.09.2008 and finally revised on 20.01.2009. Second revaluation of the property took place on 06.08.2011 by the registered valuer who valued the property at ₹90 Crore and the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta) f. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del) (A. Y. 1999- 2000) g. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 (Delhi) h. ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del)] i. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT[(2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del)] 7.7 It is also submitted that no disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

house for itself. Therefore, from the perspective of the recipient, if it were not something that he would have paid for, the activity should normally not be considered as an intra-group service under the arm's length principle. Given that Indian TP law differs from the OECD's approach in certain aspects with respect to the application

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

property or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money or any such transaction. This understanding of ours gets further clarified by, way of insertion of Explanation in section 92B(1) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 vide clause (a) to (d). We find that in the said explanation, clause (e) alone has been carved

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

property or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money or any such transaction. This understanding of ours gets further clarified by, way of insertion of Explanation in section 92B(1) by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 vide clause (a) to (d). We find that in the said explanation, clause (e) alone has been carved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT 234 Taxman 771(SC) and even a statement u/s 132(4) shall also constitute incriminating material to dislodge any earlier finding for the purpose of making an assessment u/s 153A. 18. The requirement of incriminating material is not specifically mentioned in the Act and w.e.f. 1/4/2005 the provisions of section 153C have been amended

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

149 taxmann.com 181 (Calcutta)\nf. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 92 ITD 119 (Del) (A. Y. 1999-\n2000)\ng. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 (Delhi)\nh. ACIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2006) 101 TTJ 369 (Del)]\ni. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd v. ACIT[(2008) 22 SOT 368 (Del)]\n7.7 It is also submitted that no disallowance