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]

2) issued by the AO on 02.09.2014 3. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 06.08.2015 4. Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 29.01.2016 5. Draft Assessment order passed u/s. 144C on 10.03.2016 6. Objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel 11.04.2016 7. Order passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Section 263". 7. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents in the present case what has to be seen is whether the AO has made enquiries about the transaction which the assessee termed as ‘slump sale’ of its only manufacturing edible oil unit at Haldia. If the answer is in the affirmative i.e. yes then the second question

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. (c) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was not made by the A.O keeping in view the circular No. 5/2014 (F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA.II) dated 11-02-2014 as well as provisions laid down in the Act. (d) It is seen from clause 17 of TAR that the assesse did not take valuation of properly sold as per provisions

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

142. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that in the light of the decisions referred to above, in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value of investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

142. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that in the light of the decisions referred to above, in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value of investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

142. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that in the light of the decisions referred to above, in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value of investments

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

142. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and are of the view that in the light of the decisions referred to above, in computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer while adopting the average value of investments

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act were introduced with effect from 01.06.2010 to stop the transfer of shares below the fair market value. It was stated that only an allotment of share comes into existence and the shares were allotted, the price fixed by the issuing company was paid, the shares were allotted to the group companies

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short, the ‘TPO’) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee to a bank on behalf of the assessee’s step-down subsidiary in Cyprus namely Kahutara Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘KHL’). The value of the corporate guarantee given by the appellant is US$ 13.5 million. For the purpose of adjudication, we will

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short, the ‘TPO’) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee to a bank on behalf of the assessee’s step-down subsidiary in Cyprus namely Kahutara Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘KHL’). The value of the corporate guarantee given by the appellant is US$ 13.5 million. For the purpose of adjudication, we will

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

142(1) of the Act were issued along with a questionnaire. The assessee responded to all notices and queries accordingly. The assessee is engaged in the business of investment activities. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the assessee had received shares of company not being a company in which public

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

142(1) without valid service of notice u/s 143(2), the aforementioned provision will have no application in the case of the appellant in terms of the Proviso to sec.292BB, as stated above. Perusal of the said letter reveals that the appellant had challenged the issue of notice u/s.142(1) without the issue of notice u/s.143(2

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

142(1) without valid service of notice u/s 143(2), the aforementioned provision will have no application in the case of the appellant in terms of the Proviso to sec.292BB, as stated above. Perusal of the said letter reveals that the appellant had challenged the issue of notice u/s.142(1) without the issue of notice u/s.143(2

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

142(1) of the Act had raised issues\nregarding the scheme of demerger and according to the AO, the demerger was not in\ncompliance with the provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. The AO is found to have held\nthat, though all the current assets of Rs.112.38 crores pertaining to the real estate undertaking\nwas transferred, but according

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

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered

CENTURY PLYBOARDS(INDIA) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, LTU, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

142(1) issued by the AO on 01.08.2018 4. Notice u/s. 92CA(2) issued by the TPO on 05.12.2018 5. Show cause Notice issued by the TPO on 15.10.2019 6. Transfer pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 31.10.2019 7. Draft Assessment Order passed by AO u/s. 144C on 28.12.2019 8. Objections filed by assessee in Form 35A before

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise (‘AE') without considering the facts

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Pricing), Kolkata dated 06.03.2020. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (IT & TP)-Kolkata ('Ld. CIT") has erred in law as well as on facts while initiating proceedings u/s 263 and, further, in concluding that Long Term Capital Gain offered to tax by the assessee should have been