I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

147, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the assessment order in the case of the firm is passed. On careful reading of the sub-section (5) of Section 153, it is apparent that it deals with order passed by the Ld. AO with a view to give effect

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

147, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the assessment order in the case of the firm is passed. On careful reading of the sub-section (5) of Section 153, it is apparent that it deals with order passed by the Ld. AO with a view to give effect

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144C(1) vide order dated 26.02.2015. In our opinion , the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the conditions as envisaged by proviso to Section 147 of 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1285 & 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. the Act are satisfied and not otherwise. In other words, there

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

144C(1) vide order dated 26.02.2015. In our opinion , the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the conditions as envisaged by proviso to Section 147 of 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1285 & 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. the Act are satisfied and not otherwise. In other words, there

M/S BUCYRUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

147 read with section 144C pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 7. Reassessment barred by limitation The Learned AO argued that the reassessment is barred by limitation. He argued that the notice u/s 148 was issued on the assessee on 26.3.2014. The time limit for ITA No. 616/Kol/2015-A-AM 10 M/s.Bucyrus (I) P.Ltd Merged with M/s. Caterpillar

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(15)(b) of the Act and accordingly the ld DRP cannot assume jurisdiction and directed the ld AO to proceed as per law. (xi) The ld AR argued that the entire addition of Rs. 2,43,53,752/- made in the reassessment based on ld TPO’s order , which was passed vide illegal reference, deserves to be deleted

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

8, 2015 was incompetent and his order dated October 27, 2017 was a nullity. 3. For that the AO acted without jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under section 147 on the basis of the purported order dated October 27, 2017 and the order under section 143(3) /147 dated May 16, 2019 is a nullity. 4. For that further

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147 of the Act after expiry of two years from the end of\nfinancial year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued. The Id. AR\nsubmitted that the\nassessee has challenged the assessment\nproceedings by filing the writ petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High\nCourt and Hon'ble High Court has passed an interim order directing\nthe revenue

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) ..

144C(1) of the Act did not make any adverse comment under section 37 (1) of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the details of the said transaction submitted by the appellant to the Ld. TPO and subsequently to the Ld. AO as per his direction. Without prejudice to what we have stated in ground

AMPI FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Bench that the re-opening of

8. A perusal of above reasons reveals that the AO has noted that the assessee company M/s Atlantic Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. had made investment of Rs. 49,41,545/- by way of subscribing in the scrip of M/s Banas Finance 4 Ampi Finance Limited Ltd. and the said information has been passed on for verification in respect of source

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), IT, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO'] dated 14.12.2023. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian filed his return of income

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

u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard