DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,77,800/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of running Hotels. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. During

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

68,548/- and addition of Rs.13,63,534/- towards corporate guarantee to Tega Chile. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee had made two fold contentions. Firstly, contending that the alleged transactions do not fall under the category of international transactions and, therefore, no TP adjustment was needed. Secondly, taking an alternative plea it is stated that even

RUSSELL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD),CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68,175 - Rs.15,75,444)= Rs. 1,92,731/- For that the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in ignoring the provisions of section 92C for computation of arm's length price and the relevant CBDT circulars on the subject. For that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering the Accountant's Report under section 92E

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue as well as assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68,175 - Rs.15,75,444)= Rs. 1,92,731/- For that the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in ignoring the provisions of section 92C for computation of arm's length price and the relevant CBDT circulars on the subject. For that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering the Accountant's Report under section 92E

DCI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-10(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T. A.No. 126 /Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Dic India Ltd. Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- [Pan :Aabbcc0703C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant Sri D. S. Damle, Fca Sri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2017

92E of the Act. He observed that as per detail submitted in Form 3CEB, Column No. 9 and agreement dated 1.7.2008 between DIC India Ltd and DIC Asia Pacific India Ltd of Singapore (Holding Company having 71.27% shares) and DIC Corporation of Japan (Ultimate Holding Company) established that the payment of royalty was in composite manner and the charges

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal was dismissed on legal issue by the ld. CIT (A) by holding that the d AO has received information that assessee has received an unsecured loan of ₹1.00 Cr from the Aristocrat Residences LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 shell company

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

92E of the Act along with the return of income.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the company's case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. TPO') u/s 92CA

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

92E of the Act along with the return of income.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the company's case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. TPO') u/s 92CA

TCG DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1571/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

68 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi Trib.) is very well founded wherein the concept of overseas tested party and foreign comparable companies for determination of Arm's Length Price has been accepted. In View of the above discussions, in order to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate