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)

8) of the Act, "market value" in relation to any goods or services, means (a) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market; or (b) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer

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

Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA, the limitation period stood extended by twelve months, thereby making December 31, 2020 the last date for completion of assessment. In view of the extraordinary circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 read with Notification No. 10 of 2021 dated February

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

price is paid to ELEL. 4. Subsequently, the respondent entered with ELEL a settlement agreement dated 11.05.2005 under which civil litigations going on in certain civil suits and some other disputes were settled on a consideration of Rs.43.10 crores out of which the settlement amount relating to the licence in question as referable to the agreement dated 03.05.1986, was determined

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.

8) of the Act, "market value" in relation to any goods or services, means (a) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market; or (b) the arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where the transfer

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

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

8 cost of acquisition of the undertaking and the date of such acquisition cannot be ascertained and in such a case, such a transfer cannot be brought within the purview of Section 45 of the Act. The Tribunal proceeded to take note of the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bijlee Limited

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

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

RAJEEV BISWAS vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I KOLKATA vs. M/S GKW LTD.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Transfer Pricing, Kolkata & Ors. in W.P. No. 369 of 2014. The learned Tribunal could not have ignored the said decision and the same having been ignored that would be error which is apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal ought to have exercised his power when an application was filed by the assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

8 appellant’s own case, reported in 75 ITR 438, referred to above, has taken the same view. Considering the above, I am of the view that there is no justification for treating the amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- as appellant’s income. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete Rs. 3,74,85,859/-.” (Emphasis supplied

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

8 appellant’s own case, reported in 75 ITR 438, referred to above, has taken the same view. Considering the above, I am of the view that there is no justification for treating the amount of Rs.3,74,85,859/- as appellant’s income. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete Rs. 3,74,85,859/-.” (Emphasis supplied

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY

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

price for purchasing the tenancy right is false. The Tribunal noted the decision of this Court in the case A. Gasper Vs. CIT 1979 (117) ITR 581 (Cal) wherein it was held that the monthly tenancy of the assessee was a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Further, it was held that the assessee

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.

8. We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr.Lodh. How can it be said that Sub-section (5) of Section 43 is a general provision and the provision contained in Section 73 is specific in nature? On the contrary, we are inclined to think that the object of Sub-section (5) of section 43 is to define

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

8 deals with the action initiated by the Securities and Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the beneficiaries who are covered under the search and survey operations. 4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices

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

8 deals with the action initiated by the Securities and Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the beneficiaries who are covered under the search and survey operations. 4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

8 deals with the action initiated by the Securities and Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the beneficiaries who are covered under the search and survey operations. 4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices

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

8 deals with the action initiated by the Securities and Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the beneficiaries who are covered under the search and survey operations. 4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices