ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

transferred to the beneficiaries. It was found that the assessee has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on 14.10.2010 which was not 3 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. shown in the books of account of the assessee for financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. Accordingly

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

transferred to the beneficiaries. It was found that the assessee has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on 14.10.2010 which was not 3 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. shown in the books of account of the assessee for financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. Accordingly

WITZENMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

transfer pricing order u/s 92CA on 30th October 2017. After receiving the TPO proposal, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reopen without\nestablishing prima facie that assessee's own money has been\nrouted back in form of share capital. While he can rely on the\nreport of the Investigation Wing, he has to carry out further\nexamination and analysis in order to establish the nexus\nbetween the material and formation of belief that income has\nescaped assessment. In absence thereof

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reopening at the dictate of higher authority or on borrowed satisfaction or based on information forwarded by the Investigation Wing of the Department or any other agency is bad in law and so far as the assessment framed u/s. 147 read with 144 of the Act, the Ld. AR stated that before forming reason to believe on the basis

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.48,44,14,000/-, disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) & 35(2) of Rs.4,59,51,713/-, disallowance of ESOP/RSU of Rs.1,23,58,072/- and restriction or deduction claimed u/s 80IC to Rs.102,02,10,934/- as against claim of Rs.102,80,88,016/-. While initiating the reassessment proceedings, it was noticed that

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopening the case U/S 147/148 of the Act which was disposed off vide letter dtd. 06112/2019. Another notice U/S 142(1) of the Act issued on 06.12.2019 in terms of section 129 of the Act. But assessee, not filed any documents as requisitioned uls 142(1) of the Act on 06.12.2019 on the date fixed for furnishing the same. Assessee

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

price. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the investors company were received funds from some other companies and thus providing to the assessee company without ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 having their own resources or operating income etc. the ld. CIT (A) in Para no.6.2.2 noted that

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

price. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the investors company were received funds from some other companies and thus providing to the assessee company without ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 having their own resources or operating income etc. the ld. CIT (A) in Para no.6.2.2 noted that

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

price. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the investors company were received funds from some other companies and thus providing to the assessee company without ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 having their own resources or operating income etc. the ld. CIT (A) in Para no.6.2.2 noted that

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

price. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the investors company were received funds from some other companies and thus providing to the assessee company without ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 having their own resources or operating income etc. the ld. CIT (A) in Para no.6.2.2 noted that

RAUDRAMUKHI COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Raudramukhi Commerce Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1) C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, West Bengal, 700069 Off Hare Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcr6446R Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025

transferred from Kolkta to Mumbai and the taxation matters were assigned to Chartered Account Shri Pawan Mallawat, when the CIT passed the order. The said counsel of the assessee suggested that appeal has to be filed in Mumbai Beeches. However, another counsel suggested that the appeal has to be filed in Kolkata as Raudramuki Commerce

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CEN. -2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

reopen the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22.3.4.2021. Aggrieved with this action of ld. Pr. CIT the appellant is before us with as many as five grounds of appeal which are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the order passed

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

price so as to bring to tax the notional profits which might in future be realised as a result of the sale of the stock-in-trade. In the present case, if the valuation of closing stock is changed from LIFO to Weighted Average Basis, it will invariably signify a mere revaluation of asset, and in the absence

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

Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted by the Department and hence, they transferred the file of the assessee from Surat to Kolkata and the same is mentioned in the assessment order on pages 35/36. This clarifies the issue that the Department itself has agreed that the Assessing Officers in Surat did not hold

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with respect to advisory services provided by M/s Global Footware Services, Singapore, which is an Associated Enterprise (AE) of the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that the TPO’s working for determining an Arm’s Length Price (ALP) resulted in “Nil” payment on the alleged ground that no benefit of services was actually received

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

price is justified or not, it is for the businesses to take a call. Moreover, all the share applicants are group companies and hence situations may arise where funds are transferred from one to another depending upon their consolidated business strategy and outlook. In any case, while suspicion may arise that the transaction smacks of unaccounted money being circulated

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the adjustment made by the AO/ TPO amounting to Rs. 69,96,85,142/- for specified domestic transaction with respect to transfer of power from eligible units of the assessee to its other manufacturing units