RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

5a to 5b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 404/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 1 to 4 of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 529/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2010-11, Ground no. 3a to 3b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 4 to 5 of revenue’s appeal

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

5a to 5b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 404/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 1 to 4 of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 529/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2010-11, Ground no. 3a to 3b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 4 to 5 of revenue’s appeal

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

5a to 5b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 404/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 1 to 4 of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 529/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2010-11, Ground no. 3a to 3b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 4 to 5 of revenue’s appeal

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

5a to 5b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 404/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 1 to 4 of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 529/Kol/2015, for A.Y. 2010-11, Ground no. 3a to 3b of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016, for A.Y. 2011-12, Ground no. 4 to 5 of revenue’s appeal

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

price (Rs. 33,70,000/-), leading to a difference of Rs. 43,17,802/-. Through the said notice it was proposed to tax this amount u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant is seen to have advanced a number of reasons to canvass the point that taxability of the amount worked

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

In the result, Ground r.w

5A Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : ACXPJ 1738 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, ward – 36(1), Kolkata……................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal A/R & Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Mr. Altaf Hussain, JCIT D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : November 11th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : January 15th

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

pricing & 2058/Kol/2017 Lexmark International (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12 to 2013-14 proceeding needs to be seen as per functions, aspects and risks assumed (FAR analysis) and the turnover or profits/loss ipso facto does not lead to acceptance or rejection of the comparable entities. His case therefore is that the lower authorities ought to have included

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

pricing & 2058/Kol/2017 Lexmark International (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12 to 2013-14 proceeding needs to be seen as per functions, aspects and risks assumed (FAR analysis) and the turnover or profits/loss ipso facto does not lead to acceptance or rejection of the comparable entities. His case therefore is that the lower authorities ought to have included

M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-4(1), KOL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

pricing & 2058/Kol/2017 Lexmark International (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12 to 2013-14 proceeding needs to be seen as per functions, aspects and risks assumed (FAR analysis) and the turnover or profits/loss ipso facto does not lead to acceptance or rejection of the comparable entities. His case therefore is that the lower authorities ought to have included

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

pricing & 2058/Kol/2017 Lexmark International (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12 to 2013-14 proceeding needs to be seen as per functions, aspects and risks assumed (FAR analysis) and the turnover or profits/loss ipso facto does not lead to acceptance or rejection of the comparable entities. His case therefore is that the lower authorities ought to have included

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

price at which the shares were sold had not been not only intimated to the SEBI but even to Calcutta Stock Exchange both by the Acquirer and seller. It is an accepted fact that whenever share in the Stock Exchange are sold as off market transaction, it is sold at the intrinsic value of shares and that is what

VIJAY KUMAR DAGA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKTA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vijay Kumar Daga -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Afupd 5201 K) (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 ITA No.1837/Kol/2017 Vijay Kumar Daga A.Y.2008-09 3 in respect of the trading liability allowed in the earlier years. The words "remission" and "cessation" are legal terms and have