RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

x 3 lac shares: Rs.1,54,54,080/ Rs.1,54,54,080/- (the value comes to Rs.1,54,53,000) (the value comes to Rs.1,54,53,000) (A) Amount of consideration received in Amount of consideration received in Cash as per agreement dt. 27.03.12: Cash as per agreement dt. 27.03.12: Rs.2,40,69,200/ Rs.2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

x 10.24) Rs. 1,43,36,000/- Difference (indexed cost excess taken) Rs. 49,94,662/- 4.1 On the basis of above calculation, difference of long term capital gain is calculated here as under: Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1 Full value of consideration Less Allowed Rs. 3,55,72,600 Brokerage (-) 2,37,500 Rs. 3,53,35,100 2

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

X of the Act could be invoked. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act brings /charges to tax total income of the previous year. This would take us to the meaning of the word income under the Act as defined in Section 2(24) of the Act. The amount received on issue of shares is admittedly a capital account transaction

SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

56(1)……. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under any of the head “Income from other sources”, namely- (i) ……. (ii) …… ……….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

RENU BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 46,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

56(1)……. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under any of the head “Income from other sources”, namely- (i) ……. (ii) …… ……….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90,28,352/- Upward adjustment Rs.48,94,738/- 8. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO/Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.48,94,738/-.The ld CIT(A) observed that the cost

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90,28,352/- Upward adjustment Rs.48,94,738/- 8. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO/Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.48,94,738/-.The ld CIT(A) observed that the cost

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.

56(2) (viib) of the Act and included within the definition of income in Section 2(24) of the Act." 7.1.5 In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned transaction cannot be brought within the ambit of Indian Transfer Pricing provisions merely on the presumption that it may impact profits arising out of a subsequent transaction which

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

2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. As regards the revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 2722/MUM/2011, which is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated 07.01.2011, whereby he cancelled the penalty of Rs.1,39,56,548/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section

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

2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. As regards the revenue’s appeal being ITA No. 2722/MUM/2011, which is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated 07.01.2011, whereby he cancelled the penalty of Rs.1,39,56,548/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

56,179 14 Pibiter 1,17,26,445 15 Plastic Cans 3,59,55,944 16 Terminal Wire 76,90,231 17 Red Link 1,26,127 18 Black Ink 3,91,372 19 Other Consumables Other Consumables 12,51,029 Grand Total 3,48,46,089 14,16,78,352 8.3. In page

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

x. The assessee has then referred to paragraph 7.9 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that its activities are fully covered by this (i.e. shareholder activity). xi. It has also referred to the paragraphs 183 & 184 of chapter V of earlier 1979 version of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and suggested that it supports recharacterisation of loan

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

x. The assessee has then referred to paragraph 7.9 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that its activities are fully covered by this (i.e. shareholder activity). xi. It has also referred to the paragraphs 183 & 184 of chapter V of earlier 1979 version of OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and suggested that it supports recharacterisation of loan