DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

transfer of capital asset situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The reply of the assessee is not tenable. In this context, the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Act may be referred and it reads as under: "Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

201(1)/(1A) is bad in law. He filed a paper book, wherein Consultancy Contract between the assessee and Mr. Firpo and pointed out that the entire activities of Mr. Firpo were outside the country and under those circumstances no income is deemed to accrue or arise to Mr. Firpo in India and consequently there was no requirement of deducting

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee during the year had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE for short) for supplying the PCB manufactured by it. The Assessing Officer after having the approval from the CIT made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short) u/s 92 CA(1

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

price in computing the business income of the assessee. The second question is whether by not paying them for a period of four years and above the assessee had obtained some benefit in respect of the trading liability allowed in the earlier years. The words "remission" and "cessation" are legal terms and have to be interpreted accordingly. In the present

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

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

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions

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

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

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

201(1)/1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.01.2014 for assessment year 2012-13. Grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below:- ITA No.ITA No.2079/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. ITO(IT) Wd-1(1), Kol. Page 2 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

1. General ground 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred