BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

DEWARS GARAGE LIMITED ,ACIT vs. A CIT-5 (1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner 90[or Deputy Commissioner] or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the 91[Joint] Commissioner under section 144A

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.10 crores or more in earlier assessment year was made, but it is not made in the case of the assessee. Therefore, no reference to the ld. TPO was required. He submitted that this aspect has duly been brought to the notice of ld. CIT but in the impugned order, except for recognizing the filing

IMC LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing risk parameters, then, the conditions enumerated in paragraph no. 3.3 of the Circular would be applicable. He took us through these conditions and submitted that none of the conditions is available in the case of the assessee. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer. Moreover the Id AR has put up clarificatory details as well as reasoning for apparent discrepancy in disclosure. However what needs to be considered is that neither the said clarification was sought by the AO nor any enquiry was made by the AO to check the correctness of specific domestic transactions. The issue of reference

BHIRINGHEE MINING & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,DURGAPUR vs. PCIT - BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

price for the shares transferred by it and the alleged deemed gift if any taxable under section 56(2)(viib) will be in the hands of recipient. The assessee is not the recipient. Section 56(2)(viib) is at all not applicable in the hands of the assessee. Again there is no prejudice to the revenue. 9. On the other

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

transfer of any capital asset in India. 2) Income which falls under the head “Salaries”; if it is earned in India. 3) Income from “Salaries” which is payable by Government to a citizen of India for services rendered outside India. 4) Dividend by an Indian Company outside India 5) Interest 6) Royalty 7) Fees for technical Services If income

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

transfer of any capital asset in India. 2) Income which falls under the head “Salaries”; if it is earned in India. 3) Income from “Salaries” which is payable by Government to a citizen of India for services rendered outside India. 4) Dividend by an Indian Company outside India 5) Interest 6) Royalty 7) Fees for technical Services If income

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

144A of the Act dated 22.03.2016 by ld. AO to refer the matter immediately to the Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act. On 28.03.2016 the case was referred to the District Valuation Officer, but on 30.03.2016 reply was received from the Asst. Valuation Officer-6, Kolkata stating that the Valuation Officer deals only with immovable property

SPML INFRA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

price of the land is Rs.1,20,00,000/- and building is Rs.35,00,000/-. In the subsequent years the assessee invested in the building by doing construction work. The opening Written-Down Value (in short the “WDV”) of land and building as on 01.04.2016 is Rs.11,88,80,047/-. In this building, opening WDV of furniture is Rs.23

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

transferred one or more property(ies) during the year 6 Subodh Adhikary ii) Large cash deposits in savings bank account(s) (other cases) ------ Please explain with evidentiary documents.” Thereafter the AO vide various order sheet entries required the assessee to furnish informations on those issues which were not subject matter of the limited scrutiny. For the sake of ready reference

SHRI JAGDISH RAI KARNANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

price is to be made between land and building. Land part of Plot No. H33, Sector 39, Noida is to be considered as Long Term Capital Asset and accordingly Long Term Capital Gain is to be determined . Simultaneously, Short Term Capital Gain on the building is also to be determined. (iii) However the benefit of Section 54 cannot be attracted

ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRADYUMNA DALMIA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

144A of the I T Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the I.T Rules. 2.2. The Learned AR argued that the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules could be made applicable only from Asst Year 2008-09 as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej& Boyce Manufacturing case reported