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

35. As far as applicability of Clause ( c ) of Article 13(4) of the Indo-UK DTAA is concerned, the Assessee submitted that the said clause contemplates that fees paid should be for making available of the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. must be made available to the Assessee

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

35. As far as applicability of Clause ( c ) of Article 13(4) of the Indo-UK DTAA is concerned, the Assessee submitted that the said clause contemplates that fees paid should be for making available of the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. In other words, the technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. must be made available to the Assessee

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

IV, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 10th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 27th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

IV v. Insecticides (India) Ltd[2013] 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) upheld the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in ITA Nos. 2332-2333/Del/2010, holding as follows:- “7. We may point out at this juncture itself that the Tribunal did not go into the question of merits. It only examined the question of the validity of the proceedings under Section

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

iv) It is therefore, submitted that there is no basis or material and none has been brought on record which could justify any additional disallowance. 18 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. 5.(C) (i) You have also proposed to disallow the depreciation on the entire plant and machinery purchased by our client from SLML

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

35,19,972/- ought to be deemed as full sale consideration for the purpose of computing long-term capital gain. Therefore, in his opinion, the assessment order is 5 ITA No. 778/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)- Arati Ray ITA No. 779/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Mallika Roy ITA No. 780/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015)-Samit Ray erroneous, which has caused prejudice

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 which are as under: “The appellant is a trust running an educational institution. Return of income u/s 139(1) was not filed for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment u/s 147 was initiated on 25.03.2021 or A.Y.2016 for cash deposits of Rs.3,20,49,820/- made in various bank accounts of the appellant. The appellant had obtained registration u/s 12AB on30.08.2021

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35(SC) ii. Brinda Ramakrishna us. ITO 193 ITD 840 (Bang) iii. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. CIT. ITA No. 29/ Bang/2001 iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, W.P. No.5834 of 2022 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates to foreign tax credit

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of addition to the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 2,45,000 on account of ostensible transactions in hundi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

iv) or 41(1). In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the case of the appellant is covered directly by the above decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad and Bombay High Court. Respectfully following the above decisions, the addition of Rs.43,05,78,782/- is directed to be deleted. Ground no 2 is allowed

THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICIAL SCIENCE,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess because it was his duty to enquire properly within the time limit prescribed by the statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO statute. Therefore, the very invocation of revisional jurisdiction on the proposal of the AO itself

SRI BHASKAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

iv) The case of the assesse is fully covered by the clause (i) below Explanation 5A to the section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 hence, the assessee in respect of year wise income has been deduced from the transactions of undisclosed bank account no.086104000105095 of IDBI Bank Ltd, Gariahat, Kolkata may be deemed to have concealed the particulars

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

IV. Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 46 taxmann. Com 317 (Delhi). The Hon’ble High Courts held that the authority of the TPO would be to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the arm’s length price and not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the assessee got benefits. That

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment “can be arbitrary or made without any relevance

UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

35,877/- 3,61,600/- 14,55,100/- 2004-05 8,52,094/- 4,09,356/- 14,65,904/- 22,27,350/- 2005-06 10,50,831/0- 33,93,719/- ------- 44,44,550/- 2006-07 9,91,727/- 44,98,393/- 3,86,850/- 60,05,770/- He held that but for the search the Assessee would not have declared

SRI BISHWANATH GARODIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos

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

section 92BB of the Act provides that- where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provisions of this Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions

M/S TEA PROMOTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

35,985/-. During the assessment for the assessment year 2002-03 the question of applicability of section 10B was not examined from the point of view whether the activity of the assessee company was that of manufacturing or producing of article or thing. In view of what is stated above I have reason to believe that by allowing deduction