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

1-4-1998. [Para 9] ■ In terms of sub-clause (v) of section 2(47), any transaction involving allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will also fall within the ambit of transfer

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

1) on 7th September 2015, however, without waiting for the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 22nd December 2016 itself. However, the ld. TPO continued the proceedings on the reference made by the Assessing Officer for transfer pricing adjustment. However, the assessee objected to the continuation of the proceedings before the TPO pleading

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

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

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:

1)(ii) of Act. Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 3 of revenue.” Respectfully following the same, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) had 6. rightly deleted the disallowance and had rightly granted the relief to the assessee. Accordingly, ground nos.1& 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed

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

1/-\nper annum and thereafter the addition is directed to be deleted as the\nLd. AO cannot sit in the shoes of the businessman and the assessee\nhad reduced the lease rent of the subsidiaries on account of commercial\nexpediency and business consideration. In the event of non-furnishing\nthe copy of the Board's resolution in this regard

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(Ahd), Tega Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 1912/Kol/2012 dated 21.09.16) & Bharti Airtel

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

1) a possible obligation that arises from past events and the existence of which will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the person; or (11) a present obligation that arises from past events but is not recognised because: (A) it is not reasonably certain

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

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

1 of the\nRevenue's appeal is partly allowed.\n8.\nGround No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal relates to the disallowance\nof provision for Mine Closure Expenses. The Ld. AO held that the said\nprovision was contingent in nature and was dependent on future\noccurrence of events. Further, the amount to be incurred also included\nsums on account

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

1) a possible obligation that arises from past events and the existence of\nwhich will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or\nmore uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the person; or\n(11) a present obligation that arises from past events but is not recognised\nbecause: (A) it is not reasonably

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

1) a possible obligation that arises from past events and the existence of\nwhich will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or\nmore uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the person; or\n(11) a present obligation that arises from past events but is not recognised\nbecause: (A) it is not reasonably

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in deleting the arm's length price adjustment of Rs.5,62,33,818/-made by\n\nthe TPO on account of corporate guarantee provided by the assesses to its\nassociated enter.\n\n2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

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