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.1,40,38,728/-made in respect of Corporate Guarantees provided by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking

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.1,40,38,728/-made in respect of Corporate Guarantees provided by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking

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 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

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

197 while as per the Return the Total Income had been Nil. The Assessing Officer computed the tax/interest payable by the appellant at Rs 31,36,906 which was inclusive of Rs. 7,78,338/-. AY: 2007-08 7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the provisions of section 80-IA, as it was in 2007-08 by the Finance

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.

197 days and the revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After going over the said petition, we find sufficient reasons behind the delay and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company

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

transferring, holding, disposing, and otherwise dealing and investing in shares, stocks, debentures, bonds, land, building, properties, obligation and securities. The company also carries on Software business as manufacturer, buyer, seller, trader, importer, exporter, distributor, broker, stockiest, and omission agent. The company was incorporated as a private company in 1976, promoted by Giriraj Kishor Agarwal and Tunu Agarwal. Other key persons