M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 5.1.4 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi) in case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. ACIT[67 SOT 108]  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd, [276 CTR 475]  ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Micro Links Ltd. [157 TTJ 289]  ITAT(Delhi

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case that no third party would have provided the loan to Tega Bahamas given the minimal

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case that no third party would have provided the loan to Tega Bahamas given the minimal

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case that no third party would have provided the loan to Tega Bahamas given the minimal

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions resulted in a profit does not indicate that

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating to Rs. 2,64,43,540/-. The order of the TPO was confirmed by the DRP by its order dated April 28, 2017 and the adjustment was adopted

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating to Rs. 2,64,43,540/-. The order of the TPO was confirmed by the DRP by its order dated April 28, 2017 and the adjustment was adopted

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

113; aggregating to ₹12,461,903/- as against the impugned sum of ₹6,271,671/- written back in the relevant previous year. We therefore decline Revenue’s instant second substantive ground as well in view of the above factual position. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing warrant written back amount

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

113; aggregating to ₹12,461,903/- as against the impugned sum of ₹6,271,671/- written back in the relevant previous year. We therefore decline Revenue’s instant second substantive ground as well in view of the above factual position. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing warrant written back amount

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

113; aggregating to ₹12,461,903/- as against the impugned sum of ₹6,271,671/- written back in the relevant previous year. We therefore decline Revenue’s instant second substantive ground as well in view of the above factual position. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing warrant written back amount

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. (c) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was not made by the A.O keeping in view the circular No. 5/2014 (F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA.II) dated 11-02-2014 as well as provisions laid down in the Act. (d) It is seen from clause 17 of TAR that the assesse did not take valuation of properly sold as per provisions

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section defines to mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch in the open market. It cannot be disputed that the amount charged by KSEB for supply of the power to the assessee is the price which is ordinarily charged in the open market. This issue also came up for consideration in several decisions of the Tribunal

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section defines to mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch in the open market. It cannot be disputed that the amount charged by KSEB for supply of the power to the assessee is the price which is ordinarily charged in the open market. This issue also came up for consideration in several decisions of the Tribunal

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section defines to mean the price that such goods would ordinarily fetch in the open market. It cannot be disputed that the amount charged by KSEB for supply of the power to the assessee is the price which is ordinarily charged in the open market. This issue also came up for consideration in several decisions of the Tribunal

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SCHENCK PROCESS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the solitary common issue involved therein relates to the Transfer Pricing adjustment. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of equipments used for Dynamic Weighing, Feeding and Controlling flow of sold materials. The return of income

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

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

transfer pricing adjustment back to the TPO for afresh adjudication. We therefore leave it open for him to adjudicate all factual as well as legal issues; as the case may be in consequential proceedings. The assessee’s former five substantive grounds to this effect are accepted for statistical purposes. 18. The assessee’s next substantive ground pleads that