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 153 which reads as under: “Time

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

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 (18") Shipment. a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue of this addendum. b) This commission is over the above the commission payable by Welspun to Global

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

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 (18") Shipment. a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue of this addendum. b) This commission is over the above the commission payable by Welspun to Global

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

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 (18”) Shipment. a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue of this addendum. b) This commission is over the above the commission payable by Welspun to Global

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

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)

sections 92 and 92A to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules. In the said transfer pricing study report, the assessee has used the transactional net margin method and tested the margins of Almatis India. We note that the assessee adopted an incorrect approach of considering Almatis India as the tested party for analysis

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)

sections 92 and 92A to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules. In the said transfer pricing study report, the assessee has used the transactional net margin method and tested the margins of Almatis India. We note that the assessee adopted an incorrect approach of considering Almatis India as the tested party for analysis

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)

Section 43(1) is held to be unjustified in law. Accordingly the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years

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)

Section 43(1) is held to be unjustified in law. Accordingly the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years

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)

Section 43(1) is held to be unjustified in law. Accordingly the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years

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)

Section 43(1) is held to be unjustified in law. Accordingly the disallowance of excess claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs.3,16,92,148/- is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos.6 to 10 are therefore allowed.” 10. It has come on record qua the assessee already succeeded in the instant twin aspects before the Tribunal in Assessment Years

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

148 to a reference by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act. On the letter dt. 03/01/2012, he submitted that it was a mere reminder. On the mentioning by the TPO in his order under section 92 CA (3) of the Act on 30/01/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, that the reference was received on 03/01/2011

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

148 to a reference by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act. On the letter dt. 03/01/2012, he submitted that it was a mere reminder. On the mentioning by the TPO in his order under section 92 CA (3) of the Act on 30/01/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, that the reference was received on 03/01/2011

M/S. EMTA COAL LTD.,( ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY ) ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLAKTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Emta Coal Ltd…………………………………………..............................…….............Appellant 5B, Nandlal Basu Sarani Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aacce 3506 G]

1) 883  Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala reported

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same or that in the view of the Revenue the expenditure was un-remunerative or that in view of the continued losses suffered by the assessee in his business, he could have fared better

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same or that in the view of the Revenue the expenditure was un-remunerative or that in view of the continued losses suffered by the assessee in his business, he could have fared better

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)

1 CTIL Ltd 9.18 2 E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd 66.57 3 Evoke Tech 4.66 4 Onward Technologies Ltd 11.19 5 R S Software (India) Ltd 17.92 6 Sasken Communications Technologies Ltd 5.70 7 Tata Elxsi Ltd 8.76 8 Thirdware Solutions Private Ltd 37.45 9 Zylog Systems (India) Ltd 28.33 Average 21.08 45 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

148 to bring to our notice that a change 45 A.Yrs.2011-12 even on a single fact may change the ratio of the entire decision and so the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision is distinguishable and cannot be taken as a precedent to adjudicate the issue before us. 12.7. According to the ld. AR, the Hyderabad Tribunal