DCIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

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

housing project. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also argued that the issue of the assessee’s appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of Shriram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann 398 (Chennai Trib.). 8. We have gone through the precedents cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee and found that

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

property, good or service has been acquired under a comparable uncontrolled transaction under similar market conditions. The application of CUP Method requires strict product comparability which has been transacted under similar conditions. This method can be applied where AEs buy or sell similar goods or services in comparable transactions with unrelated enterprises or when unrelated enterprises buy or sell similar

M/S ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, 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. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains, income from other sources. Chapter V then brings income of other persons, which are to be included in the total income of an Assessee and this is contained in section 60 to 65 of the Act. Chapter- VI (containing sec. 66 to 80) then lays down provisions regarding aggregation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

property for enabling company\nto secure bank loan. Here, it is clear that both the parties are benefited\nfrom the transaction. And if the transaction is mutual by which both\nparties are benefited, then Sec. 2(22)(e) will not attract. Therefore, the\ndecision was given in favour of the assessee. But coming to the present\ncase only the appellant

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

property for enabling company to secure bank loan. Here, it is clear that both the parties are benefited from the transaction. And if the transaction is mutual by which both parties are benefited, then Sec. 2(22)(e) will not attract. Therefore, the decision was given in favour of the assessee. But coming to the present case only the appellant