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)

Section 80IA of the Act can accordingly be claimed only on the basis of the rates charged for sale of power by the generating companies to the distribution companies. With certain other observations, the TPO substituted ALP determined by the assessee in the Transfer Pricing Study Report for the power transferred from the two eligible units with

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

4) of Page 55 of 77 section 45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner:] Provided ………: Provided ……… Provided ………. Provided ………. Provided ………. Provided ………. Provided ………. [Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (i)"foreign currency

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. DIGVIJAY VINIMAY PVT LTD

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

4. The Dispute Resolution Panel thereafter issued its directions on August 31, 2021 under Section 144C(5). The directions were received by the authorities in September 2021. Pursuant thereto, the Transfer Pricing

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.

transfer of the commodity or scrips: Provided that for the purposes of this clause- 4 (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

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

4 Industries Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India which has not yet been finally decided by the apex court? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of expenditure in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating

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.

4 "(a) WHETHER in facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified upholding the internal CUP applied by the assessee to benchmark the transaction (sale of power) to its AE, as well as computation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act, whereas as per explanation to section

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 :

4. The assessee filed their return of income for the assessment year under consideration A.Y. 2010-2011 on 30.09.2010 showing the total income of Rs. 61,09,14,46,480/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 5883,58,39,895/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2012 showing the total income

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

4,39,275 14.87% Gopal Das Bagri Karta of Gopaldas Bagri HUF 429 0.01% e) For the purposes of completing such sale and transfer the said respondents and each of them shall sign and deliver duly stamped and properly executed transfer deeds together with the original share scrips to BulakidasBhaiya or his nominee- purchasers in respect ofthe shares standing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S LANDIS GYR

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Transfer Pricing in respect of International Transactions” by TPO relied upon the decision in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 3 (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee on addition

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

transfer of rights held by under an agreement for sale can be regarded as a part of the consideration for allotment of shares or reason for higher valuation of shares subsequently allotted? 2. We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Sretapa Sinha and Mr. Samit Rudra, learned advocates appearing for the appellant

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 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated January 31, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court :- We Have Heard Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue Duly Assisted By Mr. Asok

4 It is not disputed before us that the substantial questions of law which have been raised in this appeal by the revenue have been held to be not substantial questions of law in the assessee’s own case for subsequent assessment year in ITAT/250/2017 which was heard and disposed of along with ITAT/164/2017 and ITAT /239/2017 by judgment dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

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

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES LTD

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

4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made