LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

house property & capital gains. The assessee filed its return on 22-09-03 showing a total income of Rs.1,96,808/-. Accordingly, the said return was processed by raising a demand of Rs.206/-. Subsequently, on an information regarding declaration of less value of the property by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO reopened the original assessment

HARIT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 2(1A)(c), Agriculture Income includes any income derived from the building owned & occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land provided that the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is used as a dwelling house or as a store house of the agriculture produce. 4. That

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

2 “4.2 I have carefully considered the AR's submissions and the AO's findings recorded in the impugned order. I have also given my utmost attention to the judicial decisions on which AR of the appellant relied in his submissions as also the decisions to which the AO made reference in the impugned order. From the assessment order

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

GANESHDAS RAMGOPAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 1999-2000

220/- realized from the tenants/ occupiers of the house property situated at 3, Dacres Lane and 2/6 Sarat Bose Road respectively for assessment under the head 'Income from House Property' in the rectification proceedings though such amount was neither assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' in assessment originally made under sections 147/143(3) nor so directed

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued along with questionnaire and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noticed that the assessee has offered total license fees of ₹2,37,32,969/- from various shop keepers/ showroom owners to whom these premises were licensed

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued along with questionnaire and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noticed that the assessee has offered total license fees of ₹2,37,32,969/- from various shop keepers/ showroom owners to whom these premises were licensed

ESJAY COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

house property as reported in the return. However, while computing the income from business and profession instead of reducing the rental income of Rs.72,30,427/-, CPC, Bengaluru reduced the amount of Rs.62,14,211/- from the net profit which has resulted in the increase in income from the business and profession by Rs.10,16,216/-. Aggrieved, assessee went

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

property was handed over to the assessee on which the mills were run. The seller went into liquidation and subsequently the amounts were written off as bad debts by the assessee on account of incapacity of the seller to pay the same. The court held that by making a deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- the assessee had acquired licence

M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

220/- u/s 115JAA of the Act. 7 IT(SS)A Nos. 42 to 44/Kol/2019 IT(SS)A Nos. 54 to 57/Kol/2019 IT(SS)A Nos. 64 to 67/Kol/2019 C.O. Nos. 42 to 45/Kol/2019 (Arising out of IT(SS)A Nos. 64 to 67/Kol/2019) AY: 2010-11 to 2016-17, 2010-11, 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s Salarpuria Properties

A.C.I.T CIR - 1,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S JAIRAM DISTRIBUTORS, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

220 the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has explained the important principle of law in relation to powers of AO u/s 147 of the Act and time limit set out therein as well as u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has taken note that notice for scrutiny u/s 143(2

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

VISA POWER LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

House Property, (iii) Profits & gains of business or profession. (iv) Capital gains and (v) Income from other sources. If an assessee has to incur an expenditure in order to make the earning of an income possible, then such expenditure would be clubbed with the entire accounts drawn in that respect. So far as pre­operative situation is concern as there

NIRMAL KUMAR RAY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-26, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

220/- after making an addition of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of ALV of the second house property of the assessee and Rs.2,06,401/- on account of unexplained money. 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there

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