BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

163-170 of Judicial PB]; (iii) Dy.CIT vs K.S. Diesels Ltd (132 taxmann.com 74) [ITAT Mumbai] [Pages 171 -176 of Judicial PB]. 9. Ld. A.R. also referred to the reconciliation of the details of reversals during the year vis-a-vis the provisions made in earlier years alongwith details of disallowances made under section 43B of the Act in those

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property Management Pvt. Ltd (2023) 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta), pronounced on 31.03.2023 and stated that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2023 being after the effective date of amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, it was a valid ground for exercising the revisionary power under section 263 as conditions

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property of the principal who continues to be the owner of the goods and will therefore be liable to account for the sale proceeds. 24. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) held that as regards sales promotional expenditure in question, the provisions of Expln

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

property of the principal who continues to be the owner of the goods and will therefore be liable to account for the sale proceeds. 24. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd [2014] 49 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay) held that as regards sales promotional expenditure in question, the provisions of Expln

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

house when the building went for re-development. Now the question before is whether the compensation upon re-development of property towards hardship, rehabilitation and shifting received by the assessee is taxable if the potential TDR/FSI is available to the land owner or society which owns the land depending upon the terms of the re-development agreement without transferring

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

house.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ncorrect in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards\nTrademark and Copyright consultancy under the head \"Professional Fees\"\nas revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO\nin the assessment proceeding.\n5. That on the facts and circumstances

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

house.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ncorrect in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards\nTrademark and Copyright consultancy under the head \"Professional Fees\"\nas revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO\nin the assessment proceeding.\n5. That on the facts and circumstances

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

house.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ncorrect in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards\nTrademark and Copyright consultancy under the head \"Professional Fees\"\nas revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO\nin the assessment proceeding.\n5. That on the facts and circumstances

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

house.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ncorrect in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards\nTrademark and Copyright consultancy under the head \"Professional Fees\"\nas revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO\nin the assessment proceeding.\n5. That on the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

163 taxmann.com 253)(ITAT Raipur) 7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the sole grievance of the revenue in the several grounds raised in the appeal related to the action of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance the deduction