M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL./JOINT/DY./ASSTT. COMMISSIONER/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowing deduction claimed u/s 801A (4) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO in denying the benefit u/s 80- IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee does not have any agreement with specified authority without appreciating

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowing deduction claimed u/s 801A (4) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO in denying the benefit u/s 80- IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee does not have any agreement with specified authority without appreciating

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,88,57,264 on the contention

M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

disallowance of deduction. 19. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following submissions on this issue: “3. Matter related to deduction claimed under section 80-1A of the Act: (A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under section 80IA(4) (iv) of the income tax Act.1961

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

disallowance of deduction.\n19. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following\nsubmissions on this issue:\n“3. Matter related to deduction claimed under section 80-1A of the Act:\n(A) We argued the case before your honour on the matter of claiming of deduction under\nsection 80IA(4) (iv) of the income

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd ………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Sagar Estate, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kol - 700001. [Pan: Aaecb6711E] Appearances By: Shri Raja Senguptda, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankit Daga, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

section 801A(4)(i). The same has also been stated in the order of the Assessing Officer. The relevant extract from the Para 5.5 of the assessment order at Page no. 10 for the AY. 2020-21 is reproduced as below: "In this connection, this is pertinent to mention here that assessee had also claimed deduction uls 80IA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance computed under Rule 8D is also held to be unjustified in view of the decision of the Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Industries Ltd. (165 ITD 27) and that of Bombay High Court in CIT vs JSW Energy Ltd. (60 taxmann.com 303). The addition as discussed in terms of Clause

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801A(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 gives an option for determination of "Market Value" as the ALP under the transfer pricing provisions OR as the price of such goods and services as, that it would fetch in the open market. 8.13. If it is taken that ALP is the market value, then we find there

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801A(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 gives an option for determination of "Market Value" as the ALP under the transfer pricing provisions OR as the price of such goods and services as, that it would fetch in the open market. 8.13. If it is taken that ALP is the market value, then we find there

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801A(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 gives an option for determination of "Market Value" as the ALP under the transfer pricing provisions OR as the price of such goods and services as, that it would fetch in the open market. 8.13. If it is taken that ALP is the market value, then we find there

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801A(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 gives an option for determination of "Market Value" as the ALP under the transfer pricing provisions OR as the price of such goods and services as, that it would fetch in the open market. 8.13. If it is taken that ALP is the market value, then we find there

DCIT,CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SPML INFRA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance by the Ld. AO as well as the reasons for allowing the same by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “The appellants claim of deduction u/s. 80-1A of Rs. 20,18,62,470/- on the above projects was denied by the AO on the following grounds: i. The assessee is a mere contractor and cannot

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act. 8. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon blank having its factories at Durgapur, Kochi and Mundra. The assessee operates four (4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act. 8. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon blank having its factories at Durgapur, Kochi and Mundra. The assessee operates four (4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act. 8. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon blank having its factories at Durgapur, Kochi and Mundra. The assessee operates four (4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act. 8. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon blank having its factories at Durgapur, Kochi and Mundra. The assessee operates four (4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act. 8. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of carbon blank having its factories at Durgapur, Kochi and Mundra. The assessee operates four (4) power plants whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act. During the relevant

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

801A after adjusting entire interest by applying provision u/s. 80IA(10) whereas on fact the said interest is relatable to both normal income and income eligible u/s. 80IA of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA ignoring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

4 I.T.A. No. 968/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dhunseri Ventures Ltd. by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their lead order in the case of CIT vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. reported in 157 taxmann.com 207 (Sc). The Ld. Counsel further submits that