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

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

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:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

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:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Itc Infotech India Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited Vs. Kolkata. (Pan: Aaaci7376Q) Virginia House, 37, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Bikash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

Section 1.482-5 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRC)) The Assessee has also produced a compendium of various judgments by the higher authorities which have held that the least complex entity should be the tested party (including the Kolkata jurisdiction rulings in case of Development Consultants Limited (ITA No. 1591/KOL/2010) and Landis + Gyr Limited (ITA No. 37 and 1623/Kol/2012)).While

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Itc Infotech India Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited Vs. Kolkata. (Pan: Aaaci7376Q) Virginia House, 37, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Bikash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

Section 1.482-5 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRC)) The Assessee has also produced a compendium of various judgments by the higher authorities which have held that the least complex entity should be the tested party (including the Kolkata jurisdiction rulings in case of Development Consultants Limited (ITA No. 1591/KOL/2010) and Landis + Gyr Limited (ITA No. 37 and 1623/Kol/2012)).While

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)

127 of the Act dated 20.03.2012. After the transfer of files to Kolkata jurisdiction, notices u/s. 153A were issued on the assessee on 15.05.2012. In compliance of the said notices, assessee filed its return on 12.06.2012 and the assessment was completed vide order dated 31.03.2014 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3). 4.1. Against both the assessment orders

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 41(1) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra) assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now coming Revenue’s appeal ITA 1545/kol/2009. 18. Grounds

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 41(1) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (supra) assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now coming Revenue’s appeal ITA 1545/kol/2009. 18. Grounds

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section will not apply in the case of the appellant. To sum up, it is concluded that even sec.292BB of the IT Act will not come to the rescue of the AO, to cure the defect of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2), by the AO, having jurisdiction over the appellant. In addition to what has been submitted above

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section will not apply in the case of the appellant. To sum up, it is concluded that even sec.292BB of the IT Act will not come to the rescue of the AO, to cure the defect of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2), by the AO, having jurisdiction over the appellant. In addition to what has been submitted above

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  It is stated in paragraph no. 9 that the assessee has not purchased the same raw materials / components / GIT as those purchased by the assessee from the four associated enterprises incorporated in Spain, Brazil, Hungary and Germany respectively (as referred to in clause 8A to Appendix B of Form No. 3CEB

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer takes place. Further, the High Court has missed the key words “not utilized” in sub-section (2) which would show that it is enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer takes place. Further, the High Court has missed the key words “not utilized” in sub-section (2) which would show that it is enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

127/- was declared. The stamp duty value of the properties was Rs.9,91,43,740/-, which for the purpose of section 48, shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, as per section 50C. While assessing the STCG from these four properties, the sale value should have been

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

127, 154, 155 and 155D in Paper book. Mr. Khaitan thereafter comes to quantification aspect of the impugned disallowance. He cites this tribunal’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 144 ITD 141 as confirmed in hon’ble jurisdictional high court holding that only dividend income yielding investments are to be taken for consideration than

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

127, 154, 155 and 155D in Paper book. Mr. Khaitan thereafter comes to quantification aspect of the impugned disallowance. He cites this tribunal’s decision in REI Agro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 144 ITD 141 as confirmed in hon’ble jurisdictional high court holding that only dividend income yielding investments are to be taken for consideration than

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted by the Department and hence, they transferred the file of the assessee from Surat to Kolkata and the same is mentioned in the assessment order on pages 35/36. This clarifies the issue that the Department itself has agreed that the Assessing Officers in Surat did not hold

DCIT,CIR - 2(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.67/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.485/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Assessee ) .. (Revenue) Appellant/Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri J. P Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Bikash Chanda, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Vi, Kolkata Dated 24.10.2014 Passed In Case No.Tp-07/Cit(A)-Vi/R-2/2012-13/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.67/Kol/2015. Its First Substantive Ground Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The

Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly excluded the loss making comparable entities. We see no reason to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s instant grievance. It emerges that the assessee has succeeded from the very issue of inclusion of loss making entities in preceding as well as succeeding assessment years. We find that this Revenue has failed to justify exclusion