UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

244A of the Act. I.T.A. No.: 223/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Universal Trading Company Limited. 4. Before us, in the appeal, the assessee has also filed written submissions along with the paper book. The written submissions are reproduced as under: “1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.07.2016 passed

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

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

b) Segmental information not available – as per the AR, it is proclaimed that it is engaged in Software development and it enabled services and products. However, segmental information in relation to such activities is not provided in the AR (c) Engaged in R&D activities – Further the company is also involved in R&D activities. (d) Exceptional year of operation

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

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

b) Segmental information not available – as per the AR, it is proclaimed that it is engaged in Software development and it enabled services and products. However, segmental information in relation to such activities is not provided in the AR (c) Engaged in R&D activities – Further the company is also involved in R&D activities. (d) Exceptional year of operation

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDI. COMMISSIONER OF INCIME TAX, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

1)(i) on account of expenditure incurred on Defence Research Development Laboratory. Since the said claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return or by filing a revised return, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the same. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) also did not allow the claim of the assessee on this issue observing

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

b) the share of the goodwill, and (c) for the restrictive covenant and that the share of the goodwill, and (c) for the restrictive covenant and that the share of the goodwill, and (c) for the restrictive covenant and that the part of the amount referable to the acquisition of the share in the assets part of the amount referable

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]

244A of the Act as the assessee is entitled to on the amount of Refund claimed in the Return. 7. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and / or to alter / amend / modify the present grounds before or at the time of hearing. 3. The issue raised in ground no. 1 & 2 is against the order

NAT WEST MARKETS PLC- INDIA BRANCH ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

68 of the Act but it should be added u/s 56 of the Act as income from other sources and thereafter, applied rate of 40% plus the educational cess and surcharge to bring the said amount under tax. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against he said final order. 9. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that having regard