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 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

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)

801A of the Act will be allowed as claimed by the assessee ignoring the downward adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that compensation paid to obtain mining lease is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance was made on the\nlast ray of assessment purely on suspicion.\n20. According to us, the fact that high profits were earned by the eligible unit in\ncomparison to other businesses by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the\ndeduction claimed u/s 80IE was excessive. In this regard, it would first be\nrelevant to examine theprovisions of sub-section

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

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

801A (4) (iv) of the Act but the CIT(A) ignored to give specific order for determination of the deduction amount. 10. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified to ignore the deduction claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income tax. 11. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

801A (4) (iv) of the Act but the CIT(A) ignored to\ngive specific order for determination of the deduction amount.\n10. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not\njustified to ignore the deduction claimed by the assessee in the revised\nreturn of income tax.\n11. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

MADHU REANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-II(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowance on this account. Moreover, the finding of the Id. CIT (A) that assessee has not filed the form no.26A read with 31ACB a certificate from Chartered Accountant, certifying the payee had fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the First Proviso to Sub Section 1 to Section 201 but after perusing the said section along with Rule 31ACB

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]

7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the sole grievance of the revenue in the several grounds raised in the appeal related to the action of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance the deduction of Rs. 12,69,60,600/- claimed u/s 80IA

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:

disallowance u/s 80IA, allowed the ground of bad debts and partly allowed on the ground relating to purchases. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the revenue preferred appeal before us by taking the following grounds in the memo of appeal: “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.22,06,775/- being depreciation admissible on machinery purchased from M/s. Accurate Electromech Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2009-10, on the ground that the transactions was non genuine. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming of charging interest u/s 234B

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.22,06,775/- being depreciation admissible on machinery purchased from M/s. Accurate Electromech Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2009-10, on the ground that the transactions was non genuine. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming of charging interest u/s 234B

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.22,06,775/- being depreciation admissible on machinery purchased from M/s. Accurate Electromech Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2009-10, on the ground that the transactions was non genuine. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming of charging interest u/s 234B

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.22,06,775/- being depreciation admissible on machinery purchased from M/s. Accurate Electromech Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. during the AY 2009-10, on the ground that the transactions was non genuine. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming of charging interest u/s 234B