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)

Price (CUP) method. 3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts

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

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, 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

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

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

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

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A

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

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

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the\nappeals filed by the revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and\nHaryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this\nrespect has been clarified hereinabove.[Para 40] {emphasis supplied}\n■ Having regard to the language of section 14A(2), read with rule

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

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income." The A.O. is required to look into the matter and to quantify the disallowance as per the sec. 14A keeping the view of the instruction as well as the amendments and its applicability. 4 Assessment Year

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 80-1A in respect of profits of CPPs by taking selling price of electricity equal to the landed cost at which the electricity was supplied by State Electricity Board (SEB) to the assessee's other units consuming electricity. It distinguished the facts in the case of ITC Ltd, wherein the power was sold in the state of Andhra

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 80-1A in respect of profits of CPPs by taking selling price of electricity equal to the landed cost at which the electricity was supplied by State Electricity Board (SEB) to the assessee's other units consuming electricity. It distinguished the facts in the case of ITC Ltd, wherein the power was sold in the state of Andhra

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 80-1A in respect of profits of CPPs by taking selling price of electricity equal to the landed cost at which the electricity was supplied by State Electricity Board (SEB) to the assessee's other units consuming electricity. It distinguished the facts in the case of ITC Ltd, wherein the power was sold in the state of Andhra

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 80-1A in respect of profits of CPPs by taking selling price of electricity equal to the landed cost at which the electricity was supplied by State Electricity Board (SEB) to the assessee's other units consuming electricity. It distinguished the facts in the case of ITC Ltd, wherein the power was sold in the state of Andhra

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, Kolkata (\"TPO\") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed\nthe Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on\nJanuary 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft\nAssessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the\nassessee. Vide letter dated 22nd