M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

transfer or issue of security by a person resident outside India) (Amendment) as well 8 M/s. Earnest Towers Private Limited I.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 as notification No. FEMA205/2010-RB, issued by Reserve Bank of India on April 7 2010, which came into force with effect from April 21,2010. 5.3 It was further submitted that the buy-back

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AT & S INDIA LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

269/- made in respect of payment of Information Technology (IT Service Cost), ……… We note that it is abundantly clear from the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 92C, as explained above, that AO/TPO should determine the arm`s length price (ALP) by applying the six methods prescribed in sub-section (1) of section

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

pricing analysis as per the law as it stood at the relevant point of time in A.Y.2010-11. Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) provides that the data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE & FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

pricing analysis as per the law as it stood at the relevant point of time in A.Y.2010-11. Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) provides that the data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

price and entitlement portion. The profit can only be ignored while calculating deduction u/s·80HHC and not the entire sale proceed. 6. The CIT(A) found force in the contention of the Assessee and upheld the stand taken by the Assessee. The following were his findings: “6.2 I have perused the assessment order and considered the submission of the appellant

LXIA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,(I.T.) CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.313/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

269 ( Delhi Trib-SB) Ixia Technologies International Ltd. Assessment Year:2013-14 Therefore, ld Counsel submitted that consideration for use of ‘copyrighted article’ will not be construed as “royalty” as defined in the respective DTAA`s and hence the addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 9,84,51,776/- may be deleted. 8. On the other hand

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

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

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

269 ITR 429 (Del). In C.I.T. v. Makhani & Tyagi (P) Ltd. this Court has not given its imprimatur to the inaction of the AO in doing nothing further after the issuance of summons under Section 131 of the Income-Tax Act. It did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

269 ITR 429 (Del). In C.I.T. v. Makhani & Tyagi (P) Ltd. this Court has not given its imprimatur to the inaction of the AO in doing nothing further after the issuance of summons under Section 131 of the Income-Tax Act. It did not condone the AO, failing to issue coercive process, and in this manner attempting incorrectly to shift

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

SMT. MADHU KILLA, KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee

M/S INDIA FINANCE LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - VIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

269/- and sold to M/s Coral Environment Pvt. Ltd for Rs. 81,78,86,533/-. In this manner, the assessee incurred loss of Rs. 12,46,51,755/- in cotton knitted fabric trading. 3.1. The ld AO made enquiries from M/s Visage Equipments Pvt. Ltd and M/s Coral Environment Pvt. Ltd. He called for the details of purchase and sale

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

269) d. Decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Industries Ltd vs. CIT (329 ITR 323) 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the legal submission of the appellant relying on the maxim known as "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which is interpreted