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 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

Section 32 of the Act 1961, held it to be a “license”. In the present set of facts the question of nomination or transfer of license is not involved. Even at the time of execution of the operating license agreement in question no amount was paid by ITC to ELEL as cost of acquisition of license. 19. M/S ELEL

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

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

9(1) read with section 195 of the Income Tax Act? (xi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of Rs.3,06,20,256/- paid as commission to non-resident by considering the facts pertaining to such expenses were not produced

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 has to be determined bearing in mind the reason behind establishment of the CPPs namely to ensure uninterrupted power and to save on cost of electricity which otherwise has to be paid to the State Electricity Board. 15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section

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 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

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders

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

9 shares for every 1 share held and since she had purchased 500 equity shares she received 4500 further equity shares as bonus which were also transferred to D-Mat account. Further it was stated that the equity shares of the company were sub-divided i.e for every one share having nominal value of Rs. 10, the equity holders