THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property from sub-letting: 3.1. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee it is observed that during the year the assessee earned income from sub-letting amounting to Rs.69,42,958/- from letting out property to Reliance Industries Ltd. and income from service fee of Rs.47,95,168/- from Reliance Industries Ltd. assessee was asked to show

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

house is on rent to EIH Limited and if a property is actually let out, then the expectation of its letting out becomes an actual reality and such property cannot be expected to let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hence, even

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

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

168 & 167/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2014-15 u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) as well as paper book(s) stands perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance identically pleaded in all the three instant appeal(s) challenge

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

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

168 & 167/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2014-15 u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) as well as paper book(s) stands perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance identically pleaded in all the three instant appeal(s) challenge

ANJAN KUMAR NAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

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

168 & 167/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2014-15 u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) as well as paper book(s) stands perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance identically pleaded in all the three instant appeal(s) challenge

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

property. It follows that the Authority cannot pronounce any ruling on the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 92 of the Act. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant has no option but to comply with the provisions of the Act including the legislation relating to transfer pricing, namely, sections

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

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

property as mortgage on behalf of the company to reap the benefit of loan as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 14. We, consequently, set aside the order of the Tribunal below by directing the Assessing Officer not to treat the advance of Rs. 20,75,000 as a deemed dividend

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SUBHATOSH MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Property Rights (‘IPRs’) both in India and abroad. In relation thereto, the assessee had obtained technical information or consultancy services from foreign attorneys. The AO observed that although the services were rendered by the foreign attorneys outside India but the services were essentially connected with the assessee’s profession carried on by him in India and therefore these payments were

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, USA,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (IT & TP), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

168 of the assessee’s paper book. 4. The AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 07.09.2012. Another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 16.10.2012 was issued by the AO. In the said notice the AO called upon the assessee to produce the following documents : “1.Brief note on the nature of business 2.Details

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

house at Nalla Fort was used during the relevant previous year for business related activities of the appellant. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant and solely relying on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in relation to a previous year different from the previous year relevant to the assessment under

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD.(FORMERLY:DHUNSERI PETROCHEM LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

House, Woodburn Park, Kolkata-700020 [PAN:AABCD1597K] Appearances by: Md. Atahar H. Choudhury, CIT, for the Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA, for the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing : June 29, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : August 29, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

property rights. (e) R&D activities –further the company is also involved in R&D activities. (f) Not appearing in the final list of comparables of the TPO order in the assessee own case- Infosys Ltd. is not appearing in the final list of comparables in respect to the TPO order for:- " AY 2009-10 (refer

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

property rights. (e) R&D activities –further the company is also involved in R&D activities. (f) Not appearing in the final list of comparables of the TPO order in the assessee own case- Infosys Ltd. is not appearing in the final list of comparables in respect to the TPO order for:- " AY 2009-10 (refer

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROHIT & CO., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey

property are relatives, the assessee has been able to bring on record relevant material to support its claim of having taken the premises in question on rent. Next we need to see whether the assessee was able to show that the rental premises was used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. In this regard it was brought