BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

56 results for “reassessment”+ Transfer Pricingclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi574Mumbai435Chennai156Bangalore125Hyderabad120Jaipur103Ahmedabad71Chandigarh65Kolkata56Pune30Rajkot30Indore29Raipur29Agra21Surat20Guwahati19Nagpur17Jodhpur16Lucknow12Cochin10Dehradun9Cuttack9Amritsar6Patna5Visakhapatnam2Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14853Section 14752Addition to Income40Section 26339Section 115J36Section 143(3)31Condonation of Delay30Section 92C19Section 69A17Section 132

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 785/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271Section 92C

Price (CUP) method. 3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

17
Unexplained Cash Credit13
Deduction8

WITZENMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1423/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA passed by the 30 Oct 2017 TPO Reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO by 26 Feb 2018 issuing

M/S TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Pricing Adjustment 24,79,701 I.T.A. No.: 2597/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. 7. The Ld. AR argued before us that corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. However, without prejudice he also came up with an alternate argument which is also mentioned at para 2.2.3 in ground no. 2 of the appeal that the same

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 68

reassessment order in the light of the Ld Pr. CIT order dated 27.07.2016, the assessee company got amalgamated with M/s. Nihon Impex Private Ltd. We note that it was the result of the scheme of amalgamation filed before the Hon’ble NCLT which was duly sanctioned vide order dated 21.12.2018. With this amalgamation made effective from 01.04.2017, the assessee company

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ESPLANADE AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. ALERT CONSULTANTS AND CREDIT PVT LTD, R N MUKHERJEE ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1085/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

Pricing Officer, as the case may be, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be, such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 243/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted by the Department and hence, they transferred the file of the assessee from Surat to Kolkata and the same is mentioned in the assessment order on pages 35/36. This clarifies the issue that the Department itself has agreed that the Assessing Officers in Surat did not hold

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

price declared by the assessee and accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and the assessee is in appeal against the cost of acquisition taken at I crore by the Ld CIT(A). Assessee's Contentions in its Appeal:- There is no dispute that the property was originally held by BFM Industries Ltd., and it has come to the assessee

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

price declared by the assessee and accepted by the Ld CIT (A) and the assessee is in appeal against the cost of acquisition taken at I crore by the Ld CIT(A). Assessee's Contentions in its Appeal:- There is no dispute that the property was originally held by BFM Industries Ltd., and it has come to the assessee

DCIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN BHANUPATH ROAD NEAR WHITE HALL GANGTOK vs. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SIKKIM

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1137/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 80I

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.48,44,14,000/-, disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) & 35(2) of Rs.4,59,51,713/-, disallowance of ESOP/RSU of Rs.1,23,58,072/- and restriction or deduction claimed u/s 80IC to Rs.102,02,10,934/- as against claim of Rs.102,80,88,016/-. While initiating the reassessment

SHYAM SEL & POWER LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee-M/s Shyam Metalics And Energy

ITA 1019/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrashyam Metalics & Energy Ltd Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 83 Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. :Aahcs 5842 A Ita No.1016 & 1017/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 83 Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. :Aahcs 5842 A Ita No.1018 - 1020/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 5, Ss Chamber, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata Pincep Street, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aaecs 9421 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca & Robin Maheshwari, Aca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Kolkata-1, Dated 07.03.2024, 14.03.2024 & 18.03.2024, Respectively For The Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA & RobinFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 80I

reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other materials available with the AO including the income declared in the returns. However, in the present case as incriminating material which has been considered by the AO being SME/HD/1 and SME/HD/2 has been held to be not incriminating documents

M/S. SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee-M/s Shyam Metalics And Energy

ITA 1017/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrashyam Metalics & Energy Ltd Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 83 Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. :Aahcs 5842 A Ita No.1016 & 1017/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Shyam Metalics & Energy Ltd Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 83 Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 Pan No. :Aahcs 5842 A Ita No.1018 - 1020/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), 5, Ss Chamber, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata Pincep Street, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aaecs 9421 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca & Robin Maheshwari, Aca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Kolkata-1, Dated 07.03.2024, 14.03.2024 & 18.03.2024, Respectively For The Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA & RobinFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 80I

reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other materials available with the AO including the income declared in the returns. However, in the present case as incriminating material which has been considered by the AO being SME/HD/1 and SME/HD/2 has been held to be not incriminating documents

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2308/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 274Section 92C

transfer pricing issue related to international transaction in terms of s.92C(3) of the Act, and after receipt of the TPO’s order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to pass draft assessment order incorporating the order of the TPO in terms of s.92CA(4) of the Act. 3.6 In view of the provisions under

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 401/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down that if transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 then Section

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

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

price. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the adjustment made by the AO/ TPO amounting to Rs. 69,96,85,142/- for specified domestic transaction with respect to transfer of power from eligible units of the assessee to its other manufacturing units

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

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

price. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the adjustment made by the AO/ TPO amounting to Rs. 69,96,85,142/- for specified domestic transaction with respect to transfer of power from eligible units of the assessee to its other manufacturing units

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

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

price. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the adjustment made by the AO/ TPO amounting to Rs. 69,96,85,142/- for specified domestic transaction with respect to transfer of power from eligible units of the assessee to its other manufacturing units

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

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

price. 10. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the adjustment made by the AO/ TPO amounting to Rs. 69,96,85,142/- for specified domestic transaction with respect to transfer of power from eligible units of the assessee to its other manufacturing units

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 427/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 73

reassessment order the AO has treated the entire loss suffered from Derivative transaction as speculative in nature by invoking explanation to Sec, 73 of the Act. I have gone through the submission of the appellant and order passed by the AO. All the transactions in which the appellant has incurred loss is in relation to derivative transactions. Derivative transactions

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

price so as to bring to tax the notional profits which might in future be realised as a result of the sale of the stock-in-trade. In the present case, if the valuation of closing stock is changed from LIFO to Weighted Average Basis, it will invariably signify a mere revaluation of asset, and in the absence