M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

transfer pricing adjustment order under section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28.01.2015. After receipt of this order, ld. Assessing Officer has passed a draft assessment order on 05.03.2015. The assessee filed objections on the draft assessment order and those objections were decided by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide its order dated 21.10.2015. The ld. 4 Assessment

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

195 crores received by the company, the provisions of Section 50C are not applicable to the instant case and the action of the AO in applying Section SoC was not justified. D. Even otherwise, Section 50C should not apply on salt of building, being a de- preciable asset forming part of block of assets At the outset

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

195 crores received by the company, the provisions of Section 50C are not applicable to the instant case and the action of the AO in applying Section SoC was not justified. D. Even otherwise, Section 50C should not apply on salt of building, being a de- preciable asset forming part of block of assets At the outset

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

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

195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company.” 05. The facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.3,69,798/-. The return

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

195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company.” 05. The facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.3,69,798/-. The return

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

195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company.” 05. The facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.3,69,798/-. The return

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

195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company.” 05. The facts in brief are that the Assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.3,69,798/-. The return

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