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

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

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SCHENCK PROCESS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the solitary common issue involved therein relates to the Transfer Pricing adjustment. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of equipments used for Dynamic Weighing, Feeding and Controlling flow of sold materials. The return of income

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

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

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

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

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]

2 & 3, are on the issue of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments, made towards advertising, marketing and promotion expenses (AMP Expenses). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that by incurring such expenses, the assessee has provided services to its Associate Enterprises (AE). Though a number of arguments were advanced by both the parties on this issue, the primary argument

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

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

151(1) of the Act. The notice was served on the assessee through email and speed post. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 20,400/-. Subsequently, notice U/S 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

2) & 142(1) calling for various documents & information inter alia including the details of transactions conducted in commodity derivatives etc. and thereafter completed the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31-03-2015, assessing the total income at the same sum as returned by the assessee. There is no dispute that the case of the assessee

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

transferred its specialty container divisionto the said M/s Transafe Services Limited on leave and license basis and in the subsequent year sold the said division as a going concern basis. In order to meet its working capital needs the assessee advanced various loan amounts from time to time carrying interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum and such interest

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

transferred its specialty container divisionto the said M/s Transafe Services Limited on leave and license basis and in the subsequent year sold the said division as a going concern basis. In order to meet its working capital needs the assessee advanced various loan amounts from time to time carrying interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum and such interest