DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

section 32(1)(iia) in the twin assessment years (supra) deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance as well with main appeal ITA No.471/Kol/2018 in assessment year 2007-08 and former substantive ground in latter assessment year 2008-09 fail accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in Assessment Year 2008-09 pleads

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

section 32(1)(iia) in the twin assessment years (supra) deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance as well with main appeal ITA No.471/Kol/2018 in assessment year 2007-08 and former substantive ground in latter assessment year 2008-09 fail accordingly. 6. The Revenue’s latter substantive ground in Assessment Year 2008-09 pleads

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

section 32(1)(ii) does not expressly prohibit the allowance of the balance 50 per cent depreciation In the subsequent year, then impliedly the appellant is legally entitled to remaining 50% of the additional depreciation, because in the year In which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50 Per cent of additional depreciation. I find

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

section 32(1)(ii) does not expressly prohibit the allowance of the balance 50 per cent depreciation In the subsequent year, then impliedly the appellant is legally entitled to remaining 50% of the additional depreciation, because in the year In which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50 Per cent of additional depreciation. I find

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

section 32(1)(ii) does not expressly prohibit the allowance of the balance 50 per cent depreciation In the subsequent year, then impliedly the appellant is legally entitled to remaining 50% of the additional depreciation, because in the year In which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50 Per cent of additional depreciation. I find

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

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

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Page

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

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Page

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

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Page

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

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Page

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

section 92B(1) of the Act In this regard, we would like to hold that issuance of corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE would have 'influence on the profits, incomes, losses or assets of enterprise' but not necessarily have 'any impact on the profits, incomes, losses or assets' as admittedly no consideration was received by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

section 92B(1) of the Act In this regard, we would like to hold that issuance of corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE would have 'influence on the profits, incomes, losses or assets of enterprise' but not necessarily have 'any impact on the profits, incomes, losses or assets' as admittedly no consideration was received by the assessee

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

transfer pricing M/s. DIC India Ltd. AYs- 2010-11 & 2011-12 proceedings u/s 92CA, the l-d. TPO had not drawn any adverse inference. On these cumulative facts therefore, I find that the Ld. AO has without any requirement introduced the 'necessity' test for deciding the allowability of the expenditure which is not prescribed by the Legislature in section

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

transfer pricing M/s. DIC India Ltd. AYs- 2010-11 & 2011-12 proceedings u/s 92CA, the l-d. TPO had not drawn any adverse inference. On these cumulative facts therefore, I find that the Ld. AO has without any requirement introduced the 'necessity' test for deciding the allowability of the expenditure which is not prescribed by the Legislature in section