DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

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

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)

127 of the Act dated 20.03.2012. After the transfer of files to Kolkata jurisdiction, notices u/s. 153A were issued on the assessee on 15.05.2012. In compliance of the said notices, assessee filed its return on 12.06.2012 and the assessment was completed vide order dated 31.03.2014 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3). 4.1. Against both the assessment orders

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

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

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.\nGround Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not\nappreciating the fact that the expenses of ₹55,71,982/- incurred by the\nassessee to settle the disputes in connection with his sold land with\nthird parties before its sale for paving way for easy transfer

VESHNAWY VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

127 of the Act. This is submitted for your kind perusal and necessary direction, if any. Yours faithfully Enclo.: Stated as above. [Anand Kumar Sant] ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata” 6. Further on 22nd March, 2023, the ld. CIT(DR) has also filed various annexure regarding summons issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and notices issued under

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]

2)(b) of the Rule, 1962 that specifies the function, assets and risks to be essential comparability factors for reference. The Ld. D. R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and law by allowing CSR expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- to be allowable for claiming deduction

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]

2)(b) of the Rule, 1962 that specifies the function, assets and risks to be essential comparability factors for reference. The Ld. D. R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and law by allowing CSR expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- to be allowable for claiming deduction

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]

2)(b) of the Rule, 1962 that specifies the function, assets and risks to be essential comparability factors for reference. The Ld. D. R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and law by allowing CSR expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- to be allowable for claiming deduction

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]

2)(b) of the Rule, 1962 that specifies the function, assets and risks to be essential comparability factors for reference. The Ld. D. R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and law by allowing CSR expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- to be allowable for claiming deduction

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]

2)(b) of the Rule, 1962 that specifies the function, assets and risks to be essential comparability factors for reference. The Ld. D. R has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and law by allowing CSR expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- to be allowable for claiming deduction

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

transfer pricing provisions in section 92BA of the Act, we note that this aspect has been considered by the Coordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs Rungta Mines Ltd. ITA No. 286/Kol/2023 and rejected the revenue’s arguments. 6. Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

RITU PATWARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 4(4),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee was involved in share trading and having Income from Share Trading & Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

NATWEST MARKETS PLC - INDIA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. CIT (IT & TP), CIR- 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Commissioner Of Income Tax Natwest Markets Plc-India (International Taxation & Branch Transfer Pricing) 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Vs. Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath 2Nd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

Transfer Pricing) 907, Regus, 9th Floor, PS Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Vs. Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath 2nd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCT8020E Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, AR Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Lakra, DR Date of hearing: 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

price. The ld. CIT (A) also noted that the investors company were received funds from some other companies and thus providing to the assessee company without ITA No.1035 to 1038/KOL/2025 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 having their own resources or operating income etc. the ld. CIT (A) in Para no.6.2.2 noted that