UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR- 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house property on that basis. Against this , the assessee is not in appeal before us. Hence we find that the revenue should not be aggrieved at all in the instant case. In any case, the figures obtained from the website www.magicbricks.com cannot be treated as a reliable evidence. Hence we find no infirmity in the order of the Learned CITA

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

iii) The payment of Rs. 2,75,000.00 to two parties was not verified with the purchases which the assessee claimed to have made in the earlier year. iv) The verification with regard to the withdrawal of sum of Rs. 21.80 lacs from the bank and cash payment exceeding the limit by violating the provisions of section 40A(3

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Properties Investment (2014) reported in 51 taxmann 387 (SC) where it has been held that - ' PAN cannot be treated as sufficient disclosure of identity of the person. PANs are allowed on the basis of application without actual de facto clarification of identity or ascertainment of activities, nature of business activity and are just as to 2 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019

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