DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he\nalleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP\nto bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel,\nthis issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee's own\ncase for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this\nground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he\nalleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP\nto bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel,\nthis issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee's own\ncase for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this\nground

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price as on that date is to be considered for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. 5.3 The submission of the assessee was not found to be tenable on the facts mentioned in the assessment order and since the contention was not tenable, the first date of transfer was treated as transfer as a whole and the market

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price as on that date is to be considered for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. 5.3 The submission of the assessee was not found to be tenable on the facts mentioned in the assessment order and since the contention was not tenable, the first date of transfer was treated as transfer as a whole and the market

METSIL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CEN. -2, KOLKATA

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

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

section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 3[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

160 taxmann.com 12 (SC)), the relevant portion of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “5. The services rendered by the agent to the principal, according to the latter portion of Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act, should not be in the nature of professional services. Further, Explanation (i) to Section

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

160 taxmann.com 12 (SC)), the relevant portion of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced below: “5. The services rendered by the agent to the principal, according to the latter portion of Explanation (i) to Section 194-H of the Act, should not be in the nature of professional services. Further, Explanation (i) to Section

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of Rs.\n189.40/share. The Id. AO is noted to have rejected this explanation on\nthe premise that the circle rates were not recorded in the books of\naccounts. For such reasons, the AO rejected the DCF valuation report\nfurnished by the assessee in terms of Rule 11UA and instead adopted\nthe book value of Rs.87.30/share

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

160 Taxman 48/289\nITR 6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern\nare part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such\ninvestments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head\n'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular\ncontains the decision of the Board

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

160 Taxman 48/289 ITR 6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular contains the decision of the Board that

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

160 Taxman 48/289\nITR 6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern\nare part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such\ninvestments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head\n'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular\ncontains the decision of the Board

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

160 Taxman 48/289\nITR 6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern\nare part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such\ninvestments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head\n'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular\ncontains the decision of the Board

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

price chart of Blue Circle Services Ltd., wherein there is a steep upward trend from 2011-12 onwards then a downward trend which goes up to the end of 2013 and again there is an increase in trend during 2013-14 but not to that extent of the past trend of steep increase. The claim of the assessee is that