BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6,70,04,160 6.79 2.45 290,798,054 Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total 1,459,105,550 Based on the above, the transfer price of power for the eligible unit is proposed to be reduced by Rs. 145,91,05,550/-. 9.2. This amount was subsequently rectified by ld. ACIT(TPO)-1, Kolkata

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6,70,04,160 6.79 2.45 290,798,054 Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total 1,459,105,550 Based on the above, the transfer price of power for the eligible unit is proposed to be reduced by Rs. 145,91,05,550/-. 9.2. This amount was subsequently rectified by ld. ACIT(TPO)-1, Kolkata

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6,70,04,160 6.79 2.45 290,798,054 Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total 1,459,105,550 Based on the above, the transfer price of power for the eligible unit is proposed to be reduced by Rs. 145,91,05,550/-. 9.2. This amount was subsequently rectified by ld. ACIT(TPO)-1, Kolkata

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6,70,04,160 6.79 2.45 290,798,054 Satna 15,66,82,502 6.84 2.45 687,836,184 Total 1,459,105,550 Based on the above, the transfer price of power for the eligible unit is proposed to be reduced by Rs. 145,91,05,550/-. 9.2. This amount was subsequently rectified by ld. ACIT(TPO)-1, Kolkata

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

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW 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

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

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

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

transfer of PAN from ITO, Ward-1(4) to Ward-9(2) has been taken from the copy of Income Tax Portal placed by the ld. D.R., wherein complete details of the jurisdiction of the assessee’s PAN has been stated right from the year 2002 to the year 2020. Under these given facts, there is no merit in Ground

DCIT, CIR. 1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S KYOCERA CTC PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Kyocera Ctc Precision Tools Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Vs. Room No. 322, Centre Point, 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aaeck9063G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing benchmarking exercise, the Net Profit Margin (NPM) with the comparable independent companies ranged from 3.20% to 6.14% and median of 4.91%, with Net Cost plus (NCP) the range was 3.30% to 6.54% with median of 5.16%. Assessee took NCP margins as its Profit Level Indicator (PLI) and by applying an adjustment towards its capacity utilisation, arrived

EREVMAX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., TP-1, , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us In The Paper Book)

6 Erevmax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant as a Captive Software Service Provider, had provided SDS/ITeS services to its AE, which after some value addition by AE had been sold to end customer. PSM is not applicable unless the service or transaction relates to Unique Intangibles or Transactions of Repeated Nature. Even the Group Profit had not been compared with

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6) of the Act to the investor companies. From 09.10.2023 to12.10.2023, the response/reply from the concerned parties were received. Thereafter, on 18.10.2023, summons u/s.131 of the Act were issued for appearance/examination of the Director of the assessee company. On 20.10.2023, Director of the assessee company appeared and gave statement on oath and made requisite submissions

ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SAFELINE MARKETING PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

transfer of case by Ld. CIT to TRO-5 6. Notice issued u/s 142(1) seeking details which were already filed by the assessee 7. Notice issued u/s 133(6) issued to all share applicants: Baghban Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. ■ Sahanbhuti Merchants Pvt. Ltd. ■ I.T.A. No. 20/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Safeline Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 9 Sankatmochak Vanijya

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

price, as such, profit on this account was returned in the books of accounts. The assessing officer added 25% of the bogus purchases booked by the assessee but ignored the sales booked to the fictitious parties. Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchases on the ground that in case the bogus purchases are disallowed then