PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, KOL vs. M/S SURYA ALLOYS INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal (ITAT No

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

2 CIT (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.12.05 Crore made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by disregarding and ignoring that on 31.3.10 the share applicants did not have the required money to subscribe the shares of the assessee company and the transactions in question were mere paper transaction and creditworthiness of the parties did not exist

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

2 different concepts and the role of Transfer Pricing Officer is limited to determination of arm’s length price ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law as well as on facts by not appreciating that in case where the monetary threshold as per section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M.COMMERCIAL PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th February, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … For Respondent

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 6th December, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos. 305 and 306/Kol/2018 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for both the assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. TRUE MAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 25Th April, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. V. N. Dubey, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Arani Guha, Adv. Mr. Tanay Ghosh, Adv. …For Respondent

14A of 2 the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving due weightage to the unjustified payment of high premium to acquire shares of a seemingly unprospective company and doubtful creditworthiness of share subscriber without considering the ratio laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 1 Vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd., reported in (2019) 103 taxmann.com

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

Bench: :

2 considering the explanation to section 80-IA(8) of the Act with regards to the market value in relation to any goods or services? B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ITAT is erred in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee’s generating unit cannot