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

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

9 of P/B), the appellant\nhad submitted in writing that he was in bona fide belief that he was required\nto keep the money in his bank account only. He had also submitted that all\nthe payments for purchase of his new property had been made from his\nsavings bank accounts and he requested the Ld. AO to allow

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9. Now, from perusal of the explanation to sub-Section (2) of Section 92B, the expression international transaction includes capital financing, include any type of long-term or short-term borrowings, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business. Since inclusive

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, respectfully following the same

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer. Moreover the Id AR has put up clarificatory details as well as reasoning for apparent discrepancy in disclosure. However what needs to be considered is that neither the said clarification was sought by the AO nor any enquiry was made by the AO to check the correctness of specific domestic transactions. The issue of reference

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

transferred out as subscribed by 18 such entities consisting of private limited companies and individuals, with apparently no credible business or creditworthiness to hold shares of such value. So what is the motive of the entire transaction? Why the churning of balance sheet was necessary by showing allotment of shares fancily priced without basis? Who are these 18 entities whose

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,98,142/- made on account of the purchase of goods by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 4. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,98,142/- made on account of the purchase of goods by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 4. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

THE INDIAN STEEL & WIRE PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

price of the product and the reliable estimate of the expenditure towards such warranty was allowable as the business expenditure u/s 37(1) ". 8. The ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that, it is an undisputed fact that the said provisions had been created on a scientific basis. It is also a settled matter that the said provisions are allowable

THE INDIAN STEEL & WIRE PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

price of the product and the reliable estimate of the expenditure towards such warranty was allowable as the business expenditure u/s 37(1) ". 8. The ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that, it is an undisputed fact that the said provisions had been created on a scientific basis. It is also a settled matter that the said provisions are allowable

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

139(1) of the Act. 4. From the perusal of grounds, broadly two issues are involved, one relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of fees / commission for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (in short ‘AE’), and the second relating to disallowance towards deposit of employee PF & ESI contribution claimed under section

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

139(1) of the Act. 4. From the perusal of grounds, broadly two issues are involved, one relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of fees / commission for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (in short ‘AE’), and the second relating to disallowance towards deposit of employee PF & ESI contribution claimed under section

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

9. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred confirming the method of the TPO in computing an ad-hoc arm's length price without conducting any analysis for selection of most appropriate method. 10. FOR THAT the DRP grossly erred in making upholding disallowance made by the AO under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

9. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred confirming the method of the TPO in computing an ad-hoc arm's length price without conducting any analysis for selection of most appropriate method. 10. FOR THAT the DRP grossly erred in making upholding disallowance made by the AO under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018 declaring total income at Rs.1432,82,52,530/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was ultimately framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2021with an assessed income of Rs.1470,93,38,584/-. Thereafter the ld. PCIT issued notice under section

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