ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer

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

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

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

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) post-amendment will be read in the manner indicated above.” Pointing out the above observations, it was contended that the order of assessment in the present case does not spell out any satisfaction as is contemplated in the decisions referred to above. The AO accepted whatever evidence the Assessee produced and also the offer of the Assessee

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustments are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs 1,07,065/- u/s 14A of the Act read with third limb of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, in the facts and circumstances of the case

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Surya Prakash Bagla A.Yr.2010-11 3.The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his original return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income

DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer of a long term capital asset (LTC Asset) being an equity share in a company is exempt from taxation. The condition for exemption is that STT in respect of the transaction ought to have been charged. Since the shares were sold by the assessee off- market i.e. not through Stock Exchange no STT was paid. During the course

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

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 6. Now we shall take first common issue of these two appeals, which relates to whether the foreign associated enterprises (AE) can be considered as a tested party as per Indian Transfer Pricing

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

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 6. Now we shall take first common issue of these two appeals, which relates to whether the foreign associated enterprises (AE) can be considered as a tested party as per Indian Transfer Pricing

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under sub-section (I) of section 92CA of the Act. Notice under sub- section (2) of section 92CA of the Act was issued by the TPO calling for various information and details from the assessee. On the scheduled dates of hearing, the assessee filed detailed submissions/ information/ explanations, as requisitioned by the TPO. After considering

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under sub-section (I) of section 92CA of the Act. Notice under sub- section (2) of section 92CA of the Act was issued by the TPO calling for various information and details from the assessee. On the scheduled dates of hearing, the assessee filed detailed submissions/ information/ explanations, as requisitioned by the TPO. After considering

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under sub-section (I) of section 92CA of the Act. Notice under sub- section (2) of section 92CA of the Act was issued by the TPO calling for various information and details from the assessee. On the scheduled dates of hearing, the assessee filed detailed submissions/ information/ explanations, as requisitioned by the TPO. After considering

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under sub-section (I) of section 92CA of the Act. Notice under sub- section (2) of section 92CA of the Act was issued by the TPO calling for various information and details from the assessee. On the scheduled dates of hearing, the assessee filed detailed submissions/ information/ explanations, as requisitioned by the TPO. After considering