MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(via) of the Act was introduced as an anti- abuse provision to prevent the practice of transferring shares of a private company for no or in adequate consideration. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that shares were allotted to appellant at a price

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

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

transferred\npursuant to the scheme of demerger in fact pertained to the real estate undertaking of\nthe demerged entity OSAIPL. Accordingly, I agree with the appellant's contention that\nthat there was no violation of section 2(19AA)(ii) of the Act and therefore denial of benefit\nof Section 47(vib) on this count was wholly unjustified.”\n3.8\nThe

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vich) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of\nsection 47.\n\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “fair market value” of a property, being shares of a\ncompany not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the\nmeaning assigned to it in the Explanation

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of Rs.\n189.40/share. The Id. AO is noted to have rejected this explanation on\nthe premise that the circle rates were not recorded in the books of\naccounts. For such reasons, the AO rejected the DCF valuation report\nfurnished by the assessee in terms of Rule 11UA and instead adopted\nthe book value of Rs.87.30/share

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

section 43(5) explanation 2 of the Act that deals: -e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in a recognized association shall not be deemed to be speculative transaction. It is further important to mention here that all the transaction through the broker were duly recorded in the books of the assessee. The broker

SMT. KAJARI BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-29(1), KOLKTAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of the flat and the value as\nper Stamp Valuation Authority. However, as a matter of fact the property was purchased\nin the earlier year as observed by us hereinabove in view of the payments being made\nin entirety in the earlier financial year and the details of payments have already\nextracted hereinabove. We note that the first payment

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

transfer of such immovable property.” 7.2. From the above, we note that section 56(2)(vii) was originally introduced in the statute book w.e.f. 01.10.2009 which was not in existence when the impugned agreement to purchase the property was executed i.e. on 30.01.2008. Thus, Section 56(2)(vii) came into existence after the execution of agreement to purchase of property

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

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

56,914/- and Rs. 2,11,332/- (totaling to Rs. 16,68,246, being the impugned amount) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have confirmed this action of the AO. 1.3. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal which essentially challenge the additions

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

56,914/- and Rs. 2,11,332/- (totaling to Rs. 16,68,246, being the impugned amount) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have confirmed this action of the AO. 1.3. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal which essentially challenge the additions

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

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down that if transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 then Section 56(2

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 92CA (1) have been satisfied. 2. Error in upholding the adjustment with respect to payment of Cylinder Rental Charges 2.1 For that the authorities below failed to consider and appreciate that in the instant case, the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO of INR 56

SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

56(1)……. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under any of the head “Income from other sources”, namely- (i) ……. (ii) …… ……….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after