DCIT, KOL. , KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.286/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit, Kolkata.................................................................................Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd.................................................……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Raman Garg, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Arm'S Length Price & Fair Market Value Are Two Different Concepts & The Role Of The Tpo Is Limited To Determination Of Arm'S Length Price

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA, the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA, the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open

DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA, the term ‘market value’ means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open

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

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11-December-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 24.07.2024, which has been passed

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 Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, 2010 (amended since 1995), lists the following as shareholder activities: costs of activities relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as parent company shareholder meetings, issuing shares in the parent company and supervisory board costs; costs relating to reporting requirements of the parent company, including the consolidation

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 Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, 2010 (amended since 1995), lists the following as shareholder activities: costs of activities relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as parent company shareholder meetings, issuing shares in the parent company and supervisory board costs; costs relating to reporting requirements of the parent company, including the consolidation

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

4. The first common issue raised in ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 is with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short, the ‘TPO’) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee to a bank on behalf of the assessee’s step-down subsidiary

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

4. The first common issue raised in ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 is with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short, the ‘TPO’) on account of corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee to a bank on behalf of the assessee’s step-down subsidiary

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

11 M/s. Linde India Limited 7.1. The ld. A.R. further argued that in objection filed before us by the Hon’ble DRP, the assessee challenged the following aspects of the impugned transfer pricing adjustment related to the payment of cylinder rental charges also. The action of the ld. TPO is duly rejected relating to aggregation approach adopted by the appellant

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

4 January 2017 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer) to the international transactions with Associated Enterprises. 5. For that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred In not providing the detailed search process adopted by him for selecting his own set of companies which he considered as comparable to the Appellant and also erred in conducting fresh search and economic analysis

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

4 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Mcleod Russel India Limited consequently this year also the Corporate Guarantee fee was assessed @3% as follows: We note that the application of rate of 3 percent for guarantee commission, as computed by the Id TPO in above cited table, cannot be upheld in every case as it is largely dependent upon the terms

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL./JOINT/DY./ASSTT. COMMISSIONER/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

transfer pricing adjustment stands deleted. Consequently, ground nos. 6 the assessee’s appeal stand allowed. 023. The issue raised in ground no.7, is against the disallowance of expenses of ₹7,50,50,000/- u/s 14A of the Act in relation to earning of exempt income. 024. The facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the appellant

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]

11(1), Kolkata (“Ld. AO”) in the case of M/s. TDK India Private Limited (“the assessee”), under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi (“DRP”). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal before Tribunal

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]

11(1), Kolkata (“Ld. AO”) in the case of M/s. TDK India Private Limited (“the assessee”), under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi (“DRP”). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal before Tribunal

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

section 92E by ICAI and transfer pricing guidelines issued by OECD does not prohibit AE to be a tested party. The Tribunal accepted the stand taken by the assessee that the AE can be selected as a tested party. In the light of the decision in the case of Virtusa Consulting Services (P.) Ltd. {supra) as well

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 purpose, adequate adjustment has to be made for the costs which the distributors incurs towards transmission of power and other additional costs for arriving at arm’s length price. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the downward adjustment made by the TPO/AO pertaining