ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price at which the transfer took place Admittedly, this is a rebuttable presumption but nonetheless reflects market realities.” 7. According to the ld. AR after having perusal of valuer’s report, the AO made addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- in respect of LTCG. Therefore according to ld. AR AO’s order cannot be held to erroneous or prejudicial

MOHAN JUTE BAGS MFG.CO.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-12, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manish Borad, Am]

transfer pricing issue. Pursuant to the reference made to the TPO, the TPO passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.07.2017 determining ALP at Rs.8,92,829/-. Thereafter, the AO had issued the original assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 25.09.2017 which according to the assessee, is non est in the eyes

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

prices in Euros is Ex-works, New Delhi is firm and fixed.” Annexure-I to the purchase order is given as Annexure-2 to this order. During the previous year the Assessee received Euros 2,74,165 or Rs.1,63,48,474 for supply of hardware and other services. The invoice raised by the Assessee on AAI dated

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Ltd. v. V.P.Gupta, CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 1594 to 1594 of 1972 dated 03.05.1978, wherein the head note – Section 72 of the Income-tax Act,. 1961 [Corresponding to section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Losses – Carry forward

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Ltd. v. V.P.Gupta, CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 1594 to 1594 of 1972 dated 03.05.1978, wherein the head note – Section 72 of the Income-tax Act,. 1961 [Corresponding to section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Losses – Carry forward

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Ltd. v. V.P.Gupta, CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 1594 to 1594 of 1972 dated 03.05.1978, wherein the head note – Section 72 of the Income-tax Act,. 1961 [Corresponding to section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Losses – Carry forward

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Ltd. v. V.P.Gupta, CIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 1594 to 1594 of 1972 dated 03.05.1978, wherein the head note – Section 72 of the Income-tax Act,. 1961 [Corresponding to section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] – Losses – Carry forward

BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

pricing by the client's quantity surveyor. 2. Designer shall provide, on client's confirmation, eight (8) coloured renderings of the interior spaces. Any additional renderings requested by the client are US$2,000 each and a reimbursable expense paid 50% deposit is required in advance. 3. Designer shall coordinate with the Clients appointed lighting designer to refine the reflected

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL NRI COMPLEX LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

pricing by the client's quantity surveyor. 2. Designer shall provide, on client's confirmation, eight (8) coloured renderings of the interior spaces. Any additional renderings requested by the client are US$2,000 each and a reimbursable expense paid 50% deposit is required in advance. 3. Designer shall coordinate with the Clients appointed lighting designer to refine the reflected