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

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

41 (Delhi - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal inter alia held that: "6.5 The CUP method provides the most direct comparison for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of international transactions and is to be preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies Services

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

reassessment u/s147. Similarly, it has also been held in various judicial pronouncements that the reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings u/s147, have to speak for themselves. The reasons must provide a live link to the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons cannot keep the assessee guessing fur the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s147. These

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

41,897/- disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. TDS; (ii) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 80G of the Act towards donation, and (iii) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 1

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

section 41(1) was not attracted to remission of principal amount of loan. In the instant case, the assessee has not got any deduction on account of acquisition of capital assets as the same has been reflected in the balance sheet and not in the P and L account, and also the remission of the principal amount of loan

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

41. The DRP dealt with the issues raised by the Assessee as follows: “5. Ground No. 1 - Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India: Gifford and Partners Ltd. (since merged with Gifford LLP). A.Yr.2007-08 (a) On perusal of the Contract of Consultancy Services for Modernization of Garden Reach Shipyard between Gifford and GRSE, given at pages

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

41. The DRP dealt with the issues raised by the Assessee as follows: “5. Ground No. 1 - Permanent Establishment of the Assessee in India: Gifford and Partners Ltd. (since merged with Gifford LLP). A.Yr.2007-08 (a) On perusal of the Contract of Consultancy Services for Modernization of Garden Reach Shipyard between Gifford and GRSE, given at pages

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 :-

section 263 (1), it is and it was open to the Commissioner not only to consider the record of that proceeding but also the record relating to that proceeding available to him at the time of examination.' (h) Reference may also be made to the judgement in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt

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.

1) ought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under section 143(3) and it does not form part of the reassessment, limitation must necessarily begin to run from the order under section 143(3). 41

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LATE BAIJNATH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment cannot be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c). From the above discussion, we note that in the assessment order the AO has neither recorded satisfaction to levy penalty against the assessee u/s. 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date\nof receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the\nAssessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person:\n5.2.14. Hence, from a bare reading of section 153C, it is clear that section 153C inter-\nalia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section\n147/148/149/151/153

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

41 ITR 191 (SC.)] has held that it is the duty of assessee to produce the books of account as well as all primary facts necessary for making the assessment at the earliest point of time. Hence, in the absence of any submission from the assessee and incomplete documents, the correct income of the assessee cannot be deduced. Thus this

M/S. SKYLARK FISCAL SEVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

41(1) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case of assessee-company for assessment year in question. Further the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case of assessee-company for assessment year in question. Further the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents

D.C.I.T., CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EVERSIGHT TRADE COMM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

41,930/- was made and subsequently disclosure was revised to Rs. 23,33,19,194/- and out of which Rs. 7,35,65,552/- was disclosed in the case of assessee-company for assessment year in question. Further the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act in response to the same, assessee company filed relevant documents

SATTAR ALI,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

41,190/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the additions made to his total income. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty vide his appellate order dated 14.12.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

1) by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act". However, in the present case since inquiries had been initiated under section 143(2), it became mandatory that they should have culminated in an order under section 143(3). 10. In Trustees of H. E. H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153A(1) provides for abatement of pending assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years on the date of initiation of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The impugned assessment year is a year which falls within the period of six assessment years considering the date of search