M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

transfer pricing legislation. Learned counsel has not explained as to how these inputs are relevant in interpreting the scope of the statutory provision before us, nor do we see any relevance of this material in the present context and given the fact situation above. It is also important to bear in mind the uncontroverted findings of the Assessing Officer that

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]

pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores; (ii) Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of 13 Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

151)and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Parabolic Springs Limited (306 ITR 42).The Ld. AR further took recourse to Explanation 5 to Section 32 which puts the question of allowing depreciation beyond any doubt and makes the deduction under Section 32 mandatory. As regards the merits of the claim

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

151/- interalia, denying the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 47 (xiv) of the Act, in respect of transfer of assets and liabilities of the proprietary concern M/s. Ravi Jalan to a Private Limited Company, M/s. J.S. Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to the denial of the benefit u/s 47(xiv), the Assessing Officer alternatively computing the income in question under

AKZO NOBEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the 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]

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules") and in particular modifying/rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 6.2. Disregarding multiple year/prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year

BOMBAY PLAZA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

section 27(iiib) of the Act does not arise at all. 6. Without prejudice to our above claim that the assessee is not assessable to 'Income from house property' as it is neither an owner nor a deemed owner, the Assessee further submitted that the Assessee was formed with the main objectives of carrying on the business of an investment

JAGMOHAN AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

price of which the shares of the said company was traded, so the theory of collusion and suspicious transaction fails. 5. Further according to ld AR, in the show cause notices and the assessment order, the AO had stated the fact that the information prepared by the DIT (Inv.) were based on various enquiries made by it and various statements

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT (Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

transfer of shares in the name of beneficiary can be an 'off market transaction' or 'online transaction' and, thereafter, issue of ' preferential shares' at nominal rates or issue of bonus shares even though there is hardly any profit or business activity in these companies. • Enquiries further revels that the funds for the purchase of shares which are off- loaded

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of shares in the name of beneficiary cm be an 'off market transaction' or 'online transaction' and, thereafter, issue of ' preferential shares' at nominal rates or issue of bonus shares even though there is hardly any profit or business activity in these companies. • Enquiries further revels that the funds for the purchase of shares which are off- loaded

ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHALEEN KHEMANI,, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- Shaleen Khemani [Pan: Agapk 6810 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer, the transaction has been made chargeable to Securities Transaction Tax (in short STT) as evident from the contract notes. 4.1. It was submitted that none of the replies as received by the ld AO were found irregular or incoherent with the submissions of the assessee and all the adverse inference drawn are basically figment of his mind

M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

151 of the Act was mechanical and not with application of mind and hence the reopening was bad in law and consequential assessment order and order u/s 263 of the Act was bad in law and hence the order u/s 263 of the Act be quashed. 4. For that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

SMT. RACHNA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

transfer of shares on sale; 10. We note that the aforesaid documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities in order to substantiate sale of listed shares has not been found to be false, fabricated and fictitious. The appellant had furnished the copies of contract notes, Demat statement, Bank Statement, broker’s ledger. The transactions in listed shares took

SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Aftpp 2386 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi & Shri A.K.Gupta, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata Dated 10.07..2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘ Act’ ) Dated 30.12.2016 Was Confirmed.

price at which the ITA No.1695/Kol/2017 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar A.Y.2014-15 7 OFS is consummated. net of applicable brokerage, service taxes and securities transaction taxes. 12. The parties agree that Compensation shall be measured only on 6% (1,955, 100) of the total issued share capital of Gillete to be sold by SKP and the Selling Shareholders

ITO WD - 9(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BIMAL KUMAR KHAITAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

price as per the bill. After the purchase of said shares on 29.07.2008, the Assessee applied for transfer of said shares in his name which was duly so transferred on 30.08.2008 . The CIT(A) therefore concluded that there was legal transfer of shares only on 30.8.2008 on which date on ITA No.1658/Kol/2012 – Bimal Kr. Khaitan ., ,A.Y.2009-10 the basis

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where