DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- All these three cases pertain to single assessee M/s Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Former assessment year 2011-12 involves Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1615/Kol/2017 along with taxpayer’s Cross Objection CO No.87/Kol/2017 arising against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 39, New Delhi’s order dated 15.03.2017 in case No.314/16-17. Latter assessment year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- All these three cases pertain to single assessee M/s Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Former assessment year 2011-12 involves Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1615/Kol/2017 along with taxpayer’s Cross Objection CO No.87/Kol/2017 arising against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 39, New Delhi’s order dated 15.03.2017 in case No.314/16-17. Latter assessment year

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

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

13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

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

13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Kolkata’s order dated 06.03.2019 passed in case No.509/CIT(A)-5/Circle-2(2)/18-19/Kol involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Case called twice. None appears at assessee

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against a fair assessment order passed by the DCIT, Cirle-11(1), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) under section 143(3) read with section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Section 92F(ii) of the Act and Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Section 92F(ii) of the Act and Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

e)(ii)]. The aforesaid gross profit margin was finally compared to the price earned by the assessee in respect of the subject transaction. Further, the assessee had maintained a detailed record of the above mentioned procedure and other information and documents relating to the international transaction that were required in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- section (1

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, are directed against the separate fair assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144C(13) read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’), which incorporate

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, are directed against the separate fair assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144C(13) read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’), which incorporate

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 144C of the Act. Transfer pricing grounds 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Transfer Pricing 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Transfer Pricing 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee during the year had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE for short) for supplying the PCB manufactured by it. The Assessing Officer after having the approval from the CIT made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short) u/s 92 CA(1

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)

E R PER BENCH: Both the cross appeals vide IT(SS)A Nos. 17/Kol/2018 and 20/Kol/2018 filed by the assessee and revenue are against the order 2 IT(SS)A Nos.17 & 20/Kol/2018 & Himatsingka Seide Ltd., AY 2008-09 of Ld.CIT(A)-22, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 221/CIT(A)-22/Kol/08- 09/14-15, dated 30.01.2018 passed against the assessment order by DCIT

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

e) To identify banks and facilitate in opening accounts. f) To discuss, negotiate with the banks to start factoring of Invoices of the new office. g) To search and appoint an accounting firm for doing the accounting works of the new firm. h) Finalize the software required for the working of the office. i) To setup stockyards for storing

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

13 of 25 We, therefore, find no merit in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal and dismiss the same. 15. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal challenging the selection of M/s. South India Surgical Co. Limited (SISCO) as comparable by the TPO, the ld. Counsel for the assessee explained

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

13 of 25 We, therefore, find no merit in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal and dismiss the same. 15. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal challenging the selection of M/s. South India Surgical Co. Limited (SISCO) as comparable by the TPO, the ld. Counsel for the assessee explained

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

13 of 25 We, therefore, find no merit in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal and dismiss the same. 15. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal challenging the selection of M/s. South India Surgical Co. Limited (SISCO) as comparable by the TPO, the ld. Counsel for the assessee explained