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

9. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in denying claim of deduction in terms of the first proviso to section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that

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

9. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in denying claim of deduction in terms of the first proviso to section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that

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

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. 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 - 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

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-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]

disallowance the deduction of Rs. 12,69,60,600/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 35,67,10,110/- made by the TPO in respect of transfer price of the eligible captive power plat (In short CPP) at Haldia and West Bengal. On perusal of the order passed

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

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

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

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

9 42 lacs while calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) for the AY 2011-12. The Ld. CIT(A) also directed the AO to exclude the investment of Rs.2996.96 lacs in subsidiary on the basis that no dividend income was earned from such subsidiary. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee