ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

140/- from two concerns namely M/s Jain Housing Agency and M/s Vikash Builders. Besides the assessee has income from house property, capital gain and other sources. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals

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

house expenses etc. were not considered in the profit and loss account of the power units. Thereafter, ld. AO proceeded to allocate such expenses to the power undertakings on an ad- hoc basis on a formula worked out by him. The ld. CIT(A) was persuaded by the arguments that all expenses considered for allocation here

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

140 taxmann.com 308 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH Greensaphire Infratech (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Whether amendment in section68 by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013 is prospective in nature and thus applicable from assessment year 2013-14 - Held, yes - Assessee-company during year increased its share capital by way of share capital

M/S. SHANTI VYAPAR PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1),, KOLKATA

property was\npurchased at 38 lacs, whereas the stamp authority valuation was\n₹1,19,39,631/-. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to explain\nthe same. The assessee submitted that the Provisions of Section 56(2)\nare not applicable to the private limited companies and since, the\nassessee is a private limited company the said section is applicable with

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 140\nof the said Act and delivered at my office on or before\n(b) ** produce or cause to be produced before me at my office at 3rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally,\nAayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata - 700107 on 16.05.2013 at 01:15 P.M. the accounts and / or\ndocuments specified overleaf. \"AS PER ANNEXURE-A ENCLOSED\"\n(c) **furnish

DAMODAR DHARA, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 414/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Damodar Dhara,......................................Appellant Thekuachak, Kumarchak, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721652 [Pan: Aiupd7241C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-27(1), Haldia, Dubey House, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Midnapore (East)-721602 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the income should be added to the income of the assessee as deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. A.R. contended before us that the disclosure was made by the assessee during the year suo motu to the tune of Rs.84,40,690/-, which

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures or any work of art,— (i) …; (ii) …; (iii) …; (c) valuation of shares and securities

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

property, goods or service has been acquired under similar market conditions. It is also settled that choice of tested party is of lesser significance for the purpose of application of CUP method but instead key factor in application of CUP is product comparability and similar market conditions. Further the CUP method can be classified into two categories i.e. internal

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

140 against the returned total income of Rs.547,399,361. 3(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ DRP/ AO erred in relying on extraneous consideration, unsubstantiated presumptions in holding that expenditure towards advertisement, marketing and promotion (‘AMP'), unilaterally incurred by the appellant, results in a separate international transaction

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

140 against the returned total income of Rs.547,399,361. 3(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ DRP/ AO erred in relying on extraneous consideration, unsubstantiated presumptions in holding that expenditure towards advertisement, marketing and promotion (‘AMP'), unilaterally incurred by the appellant, results in a separate international transaction

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

140 against the returned total income of Rs.547,399,361. 3(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ DRP/ AO erred in relying on extraneous consideration, unsubstantiated presumptions in holding that expenditure towards advertisement, marketing and promotion (‘AMP'), unilaterally incurred by the appellant, results in a separate international transaction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

140 taxmann.com 71 (Calcutta) and IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (supra). It is further stated that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be considered for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. 7.9 We have considered the facts

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

140 against the returned total income of Rs.547,399,361.\n3(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ DRP/ AO erred in relying on extraneous consideration, unsubstantiated presumptions in holding that expenditure towards advertisement, marketing and promotion (‘AMP'), unilaterally incurred by the appellant, results in a separate international transaction

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

140\nagainst the returned total income of Rs.547,399,361.\n3(a). That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing\nOfficer ('TPO')/ DRP/ AO erred in relying on extraneous consideration,\nunsubstantiated presumptions in holding that expenditure towards\nadvertisement, marketing and promotion (‘AMP'), unilaterally incurred by the\nappellant, results in a separate international transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

properties Pvt. Ltd. [“AAIPL”]. 3. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and maintenance service of commercial area let out to various tenants. The assessee had filed return of income during the year declaring total income of Rs. 46,89,36,410/-. The case of the assessee was selected