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]

3,22,97,070 Total Sales with non-AE Rs.44,97,00,245 Arm's Length Sales with A.E. Rs.33,61,93,386 Price charged in international transaction Rs.21,30,91,254 Shortfall being adjustment u/s 92CA Rs.12,31,02,132 The above shortfall of Rs.12,31,02,132/- was treated as transfer pricing to be adjusted upward u/s 92CA

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]

3,22,97,070 Total Sales with non-AE Rs.44,97,00,245 Arm's Length Sales with A.E. Rs.33,61,93,386 Price charged in international transaction Rs.21,30,91,254 Shortfall being adjustment u/s 92CA Rs.12,31,02,132 The above shortfall of Rs.12,31,02,132/- was treated as transfer pricing to be adjusted upward u/s 92CA

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)

transfer pricing principles and that the assessee had not undertaken the transaction to avoid taxes. To conclude, as per Section 92C(3): Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer is, on the basis of material or information of document ill his possession, of the opinion that- (a) the price charged or paid

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)

section 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished

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)

section 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished

STAR PAPER MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

price of power units transferred from CPP to the ld. TPO. The ld. TPO vide order dt. 31/07/2021, framed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act computed the ALP of the power transfer from CPP at Rs.3.84 per unit as against transfer rate of Rs.9.08 per unit applied by the assessee and the same being reflected in the 3CEB report

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

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :- (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,- (i) The price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled

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]

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section

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]

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

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

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

I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

section 45(3) does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. The ITO's actions are completely contrary to the scheme of the statute. It was reiterated that the purported finding of the ITO that the land was grossly under-valued

ORGANON (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 92C(3) of the Act, which triggers the application of provisions of the transfer pricing. B. Reasons why segment 2 (Contract Manufacturing Segment) cannot be compared to segment 3. - Functional profile of segment 2 and 3 not correctly appreciated by the TPO - Both segment 2 and 3 cannot be compared since both the segment have related party transactions