PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LTD

In the result, these appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

28. There is a marked distinction between a lease and a licence. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 20Th August, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhorea, Adv. …For Appellant.

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA? b) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the finding of the TPO that the assessee's generating unit cannot as such

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

transfer pricing adjustment. Thereafter the assessing officer called for various details and the matter was discussed with the assessee. The issue which was considered by the assessing officer are with regard to the 6 unexpired discount on forward contracts, market to market loss of forward contracts, designed charges, non-deduction of TDS for information technology expense, information technology expense, patent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MADANLAL LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 28Th July, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

28 provides as follows: Explanation 2.-Where speculative transactions carried on by an assessee are of such a nature as to constitute a business, the business (hereinafter referred to as "speculation business") shall be deemed to be distinct and separate from any other business. 10. From a plain reading of the Explanation 2, the following deductions can be made

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: :

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 92BA is crossed, market value has to mean

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

price of the shares sold and transferred by the Bagri Group of respondents to BulakidasBhaiya and his nominees within a period of 7 days' from date of the handing over of the share scrips and properly executed transfer deeds by the sellers to the purchasers in terms of this final Award. h) All other claims by parties against each other

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

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

transfer of title to the goods outside India and hence there is no income chargeable to tax in India and therefore the provisions of Section 195 of the Act are not attracted. It was also contended that such advances to suppliers have also not been charged to Profit and loss Account for the relevant assessment year. 4. The Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

28,346/-. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and, subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act. In response to such notices, the assessee’s authorised representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. With regard to the first issue, namely, the loss

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court