DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was challenged before the ld. DRP by the assessee and the ld. DRP vide order dated 11.07.2018 partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to Rs.5,74,32,036/- in respect of transfer pricing adjustment. 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 DIC India Limited 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel

GE HEALTHCARE FINLAND OY(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Transfer Pricing officer ("TPO") as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 92CA of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the Assessment Order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and bad in law inasmuch as the notice purportedly issued under Section 148

GE HEALTHCARE FINLAND OY(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Transfer Pricing officer ("TPO") as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 92CA of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the Assessment Order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction and bad in law inasmuch as the notice purportedly issued under Section 148

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

section 144C & 144C(5) of the Act was wrong and illegal and void ab initio. The ld. counsel has invited our attention to the following sequence of events: Particulars In case of the Appellant I.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited Return of Income u/s 139(1) filed 28 Nov 2014 Notice u/s 143(2)/142

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred and with whom the transaction had taken place. The\nA.O. did not verify the correctness of information received by him but\nmerely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical\nmanner. The A.O. had not even recorded his satisfaction about the\ncorrectness or otherwise of the information for issuing a notice u/s\n148. What had been recorded

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power at the rate at which the manufacturing unit was procuring power from the Grid. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court after taking note of the decision of CIT Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) wherein their earlier decision in the case of ITC Ltd (supra) was reversed, since upheld the decision

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power at the rate at which the manufacturing unit was procuring power from the Grid. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court after taking note of the decision of CIT Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) wherein their earlier decision in the case of ITC Ltd (supra) was reversed, since upheld the decision

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power at the rate at which the manufacturing unit was procuring power from the Grid. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court after taking note of the decision of CIT Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) wherein their earlier decision in the case of ITC Ltd (supra) was reversed, since upheld the decision

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power at the rate at which the manufacturing unit was procuring power from the Grid. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court after taking note of the decision of CIT Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) wherein their earlier decision in the case of ITC Ltd (supra) was reversed, since upheld the decision

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power at the rate at which the manufacturing unit was procuring power from the Grid. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court after taking note of the decision of CIT Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) wherein their earlier decision in the case of ITC Ltd (supra) was reversed, since upheld the decision

DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S KYOCERA CTC PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Kyocera Ctc Precision Tools Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Vs. Room No. 322, Centre Point, 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aaeck9063G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing benchmarking exercise, the Net Profit Margin (NPM) with the comparable independent companies ranged from 3.20% to 6.14% and median of 4.91%, with Net Cost plus (NCP) the range was 3.30% to 6.54% with median of 5.16%. Assessee took NCP margins as its Profit Level Indicator (PLI) and by applying an adjustment towards its capacity utilisation, arrived

EREVMAX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., TP-1, , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us In The Paper Book)

Transfer Pricing Order, and the consequent determination of ALP amount of Rs.17678365/- being 16.85% of the Turnover of the Appellant of Rs. 105274894/-, had been proper and thus, deserved endorsement and confirmation. The Appellant had furnished respected replies to both the TPO and the DRP, by means of separate submissions. A kind perusal of the said respective replies would highlight

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

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

price (Rs. 33,70,000/-), leading to a difference of Rs. 43,17,802/-. Through the said notice it was proposed to tax this amount u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant is seen to have advanced a number of reasons to canvass the point that taxability of the amount worked

RITU PATWARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

price hike of the shares. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer without being fully satisfied with the document furnished by the assessee passed an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2017 making an addition of Rs.6,86,38,605/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus LTCG earned by the assessee by trading in penny stock. 3. Aggrieved