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

transfer of capital asset situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The reply of the assessee is not tenable. In this context, the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Act may be referred and it reads as under: "Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

139\nof the Act, these grounds of appeal are allowed and the finding of the\nLd. CIT(A) are reversed and the Ld. AO is directed to allow deduction\nu/s 54F of the Act to the assessee as per law. Hence, Ground Nos.\n2, 3 and 4 are allowed and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reversed\nand

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

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

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

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)

Price list etc. m) To make the office profitable as soon as possible. Responsibilities of Electrosteel Electrosteel will be responsible to help facilitate Mr Firpo to do the above activities will all its guidance and support Mr Firpo will interact mainly with Mr Rajesh Bang, Mr Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Mr Arpan Poddar and with senior management of Electrosteel

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)

1), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) read with section 92CA94) / 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) , pursuant to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short the ld DRP] under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 15.10.2015 for the Asst Year

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 :-

139(1) of the Act by the assessee, or for failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the failing to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act etc. Thus, such non-est notice cannot

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]

139(1) of the Act. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, we confirm the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. 7. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.3

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]

139(1) of the Act. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, we confirm the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. 7. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.3

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]

139(1) of the Act. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, we confirm the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. 7. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.3

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]

139(1) of the Act. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, we confirm the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue. 7. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of deleting the disallowance of Rs.3

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

139,82,21,079/-made by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘the AO’) on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the price of the power transferred by the captive power plant of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act to the non- eligible manufacturing units of the assessee and thereby reducing the claim

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

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

transfer pricing grounds) are dismissed. 25. Now, we shall take other miscellaneous grounds raised by the Revenue. 26.(i).Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting provision for payment of gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Act and addition made on account of contribution to superannuation fund U/s 40A(9) of The Act. (a). Provision for gratuity

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(4) of the Act) declaring total income at Rs 15,48,850/- . The ld AO observed that in response to notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted details , which were examined with annexure, reports etc along with the return of income and kept on record

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as determined by the assessee is at ALP. On the other hand, we do not find in the merit of the submissions of the ld DR that the assessee is not a contract manufacturer which are incorrect observations on the part of the TPO/AO. As regards the argument of the ld DR that the assessee itself followed TNMM method

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price as determined by the assessee is at ALP. On the other hand, we do not find in the merit of the submissions of the ld DR that the assessee is not a contract manufacturer which are incorrect observations on the part of the TPO/AO. As regards the argument of the ld DR that the assessee itself followed TNMM method

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)

139 above, viz. Investments of the assessee (Rs.15,894.02 lakhs), strategic investments (Rs. 5990.06 lakhs), investments which yielded dividend income during the previous year including strategic investments (Rs.13,650.89 lakhs) and investments in dividend yielding shares (excluding strategic investments) (Rs. 7,660.83 lakhs). 144. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that

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)

139 above, viz. Investments of the assessee (Rs.15,894.02 lakhs), strategic investments (Rs. 5990.06 lakhs), investments which yielded dividend income during the previous year including strategic investments (Rs.13,650.89 lakhs) and investments in dividend yielding shares (excluding strategic investments) (Rs. 7,660.83 lakhs). 144. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that