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

transfer of leasehold interest/rights, which is in consonance with the provisions of section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

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

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

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

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA

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

section 48 of Income tax Act, 1961.\n04. Against disbelieving or non consideration of evidences furnished:\nFor that on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A), NFAC\nand Id. JAO erred in disbelieving the share purchase agreement dated\n21.05.2015 regarding sale of equity shares of SRNL without proper\nappraisal of material before both the authorities

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

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

2) of the Act. However, without going into the merits of the said issue, we find that the Assessing Officer had made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

55 & 56/KOL/2011 in ITA Nos. 224/KOL/2016 and 381/KOL/2017 in A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012- 13. These Miscellaneous Applications were allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 06.11.2019. The grievance of the assessee in the Miscellaneous Applications was that Tribunal has adjudicated one part of the grievances of the assessee pleaded in certain grounds of appeals, whereas it shifts

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.

transferred to the General Reserve, which can be distributed to shareholders, however, losses or depreciation cannot be taken from this reserve, it makes sure that a company's financial records show the real value of its assets, giving a clearer view of its finances. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a reserve set apart towards depreciation

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

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

2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.\nGround Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not\nappreciating the fact that the expenses of ₹55,71,982/- incurred by the\nassessee to settle the disputes in connection with his sold land with\nthird parties before its sale for paving way for easy transfer

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55 of the Paper Book. We also note that the Himadri Global Investment Limited (HGIL) took a loan from HSBC bank at LIBOR + 275 bps in Hong Kong, whereas the interest charged by the assessee at a LIBOR + 350 bps meaning thereby the interest charged by the assessee from HGIL was more than the interest rate charged locally in Hong