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 Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'TPO') under section 92CA of the Act. The TPO directed following arm's length price (ALP) adjustments, under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM') at the entity level, as under: (a).Arm`s Length Price adjustment for A.Y.2002­03 at Rs. 5,19,77,000/­ (b).Arm`s Length Price adjustment

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)

Price (CUP) method. 3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

163,352,592.00 Operating profit 26,137,865.00 OP/OC 16.00% Reconciliation Add: Other income 418,608.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Less; Interest 1,851,986.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 PBT 242,704,487.00 PBT as penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed to consider the above working while working out the margin. Thus

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

163,352,592.00 Operating profit 26,137,865.00 OP/OC 16.00% Reconciliation Add: Other income 418,608.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Less; Interest 1,851,986.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 PBT 242,704,487.00 PBT as penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed to consider the above working while working out the margin. Thus

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, respectfully following the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

section 80IA (8) the electricity transferred from the power plant to the PET regimes manufacturing unit was valued by the assessee with reference to the amount charged by the concerned State Electricity Board in this appeal raised opined the assessee. The Ld. AR further submits that the assessee worked out the transfer price of power of both CPPs aggregating

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft Assessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft Assessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft Assessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Transfer Pricing Officer, Kolkata ("TPO") u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The Ld. TPO computed the Arm's Length Price and passed an Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on January 25, 2016. On receipt of the Ld. TPO's order, the Draft Assessment Order was passed on 10.03.2016 and was sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 ITR 769 (MP) 3. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) 4. Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen 73 ITR 53 (SC) 5. ITAT, Kolkata C Bench Rallis India Ltd. v.DCIT Ld. AR also submitted that this Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 851/Kol/2008, 1018/Kol/2007 & 1640/Kol/2008