M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

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

Transfer Pricing Officer's order. Its case is that a corporate guarantee amounts to an international transaction as per section 92B Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.02. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance since various judicial precedents (2016) 157 ITD 132

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustments. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel held that the aforesaid order passed by the Assessing Officer, itself, was wrong and illegal. And since there was no legally valid reference made by the Assessing Officer to the TPO during the reassessment proceedings, therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel decided that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the aforesaid invalid

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: The O/O Pcit-2, Kolkata 23.01.2024 Certificate Of Filing 2Nd Appeal Was Received From The O/O Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata 24.01.2024 Necessary Hardcopies Of Documents/ Paper/ Details Required For Filing 2Nd Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata Were Collected & Prepared. 25.01.2024 2Nd Appeal Was Filed

Transfer Pricing Officer's order. Its case is that a corporate guarantee amounts to an international transaction as per section 92B Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.02. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance since various judicial precedents (2016) 157 ITD 132

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the revenue succeeds partially\non this issue.\n\n7.\nConsidering the discussion above, the Revenue's appeals are partly\nallowed

Transfer\nPricing Officer (in short TPO') assessed a CG fees @ 3% per annum as an Arm's Length Price\n(in short 'ALP') for the CG so provided by the appellant. It is a matter of record that this issue\nis a recurring matter in the appellant's case and the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the assessee

JCIT(OSD), CIR011(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 80IA(8) of the Act. 8. The Ld. AR for the assessee, at the onset, submitted that, the assessee had declared overall business loss of Rs.(-) 131,04,88,074/- in the return of income and accordingly did not make any claim qua profit as deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of the profits derived

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The Ld. TPO proposed a downward adjustment of Rs. 2,50,55,12,743/- in computing the price of sale of power. It is seen that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by ITAT’s orders

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

transferred to the General Reserve, which can be distributed to shareholders, however, losses or depreciation cannot be taken from this reserve, it makes sure that a company's financial records show the real value of its assets, giving a clearer view of its finances. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a reserve set apart towards depreciation

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

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

132 in April 2010 to Rs. 221 in October 2010 after which there was a share split in the ratio of 1:2. The Ld. AO also analysed the modus operandi, the transactions and the details of inquiries conducted under section 131 of the Act and concluded that the assessee had pre-arranged accommodation entries to the tune

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132 of the Act was\nconducted on 30.11.2022 on the assessee as a part of 'Kanodia Group of cases'. Later,\nthe AO had passed the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2024 determining the\ntotal income of the assessee at Rs.9,20,98,533/-, On perusal of the assessment order,\nit is observed that the AO had made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132 of the Act was\nconducted on 30.11.2022 on the assessee as a part of 'Kanodia Group of cases'. Later,\nthe AO had passed the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2024 determining the\ntotal income of the assessee at Rs.9,20,98,533/-, On perusal of the assessment order,\nit is observed that the AO had made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132 of the Act was\nconducted on 30.11.2022 on the assessee as a part of 'Kanodia Group of cases'. Later,\nthe AO had passed the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2024 determining the\ntotal income of the assessee at Rs.9,20,98,533/-, On perusal of the assessment order,\nit is observed that the AO had made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

132 of the Act was\nconducted on 30.11.2022 on the assessee as a part of 'Kanodia Group of cases'. Later,\nthe AO had passed the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2024 determining the\ntotal income of the assessee at Rs.9,20,98,533/-, On perusal of the assessment order,\nit is observed that the AO had made

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

transfer of leasehold interest/rights, which is in consonance with the provisions of section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik

MOHAMMED TAJ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1184/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mohammed Taj……….………………………..……….………….…..……Appellant 11, Balmukund Macker Road, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aaccpt0441J] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata.…....…………..…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri A. Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 20, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.03.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,93,560/- U/S Section 139 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 13.01.2021 In The Case Of Hospitality Group Of Cases To Which The Assessee Belongs. The Search Operation Extended To The Premises Of The Assessee At 11, Bal Mukund Mackar Road, Khaja House, Barabazar, Kolkata-700007. Following The Search Operation, The Case Of The Assessee Was Centralized With Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata & Subsequently, The Case Was Transferred To The Pr. Cit-13, Kolkata. Consequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Which Was Followed By Issuing A Notice U/S 142(1)

section 139 of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 13.01.2021 in the case of Hospitality Group of cases to which the assessee belongs. The search operation extended to the premises of the assessee at 11, Bal Mukund Mackar Road, Khaja House, Barabazar, Kolkata-700007. Following the search operation, the case

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee\ncompany in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out\nof fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out\nof the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the\npresent case, the assessee

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee