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)

168 (Chandigarh); [2012] 53 SOT 70 (Chandigarh-Trib) wherein it was held that where a business strategy had been adopted by the assessee by way of investment in shares of sick company in order to take over the said company for widening its operation of business, that cannot be held to be investment per se. Reliance was also placed

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)

168 (Chandigarh); [2012] 53 SOT 70 (Chandigarh-Trib) wherein it was held that where a business strategy had been adopted by the assessee by way of investment in shares of sick company in order to take over the said company for widening its operation of business, that cannot be held to be investment per se. Reliance was also placed

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)

168 (Chandigarh); [2012] 53 SOT 70 (Chandigarh-Trib) wherein it was held that where a business strategy had been adopted by the assessee by way of investment in shares of sick company in order to take over the said company for widening its operation of business, that cannot be held to be investment per se. Reliance was also placed

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were owned

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were owned

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 144C(1) of the Act, the AO has disallowed the same by contending that no evidence was produced in regard to claim for deduction made in the return of income without appreciating that the said expenditure pertains to the AY under consideration and has been incurred exclusively for the purpose of the business. 2. Submission 2.1 Expenditure on warranty

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 144C(1) of the Act, the AO has disallowed the same by contending that no evidence was produced in regard to claim for deduction made in the return of income without appreciating that the said expenditure pertains to the AY under consideration and has been incurred exclusively for the purpose of the business. 2. Submission 2.1 Expenditure on warranty

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 144C(1) of the Act, the AO has disallowed the same by contending that no evidence was produced in regard to claim for deduction made in the return of income without appreciating that the said expenditure pertains to the AY under consideration and has been incurred exclusively for the purpose of the business. 2. Submission 2.1 Expenditure on warranty

M/S. R. S. SOFTWARE (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am M/S. R.S. Software (India) Ltd. Vs. Acit/Cir-2(2), Kolkata A-2, Fmc Fortuna, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kol-20. Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 7813 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

168 Rs.3,73,96,178 TNMM Purchase of services Rs.12,74,27,928 Rs.12,74,27,928 TNMM Reimbursement of Rs.1,39,43,115 Rs.1,39,43,115 Actual cost expenses 6. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer referred the matter to Transfer pricing officer to determine the arm`s length price of the international transactions undertaken

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

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

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

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD.(FORMERLY:DHUNSERI PETROCHEM LTD.), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing purpose, adequate adjustment has to be made for the costs which the distributors incurs towards transmission of power and other additional costs for arriving at arm’s length price. (7) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the downward adjustment made by the TPO/AO pertaining

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

168 ITR (St.) 87, wherein it was stated thus: “24.2 With a view to blocking this escape route for avoiding capital gains tax, the Finance Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (3) in section 45. The effect of this amendment is that profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset by a partner to a firm shall

STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

168,346) Note-1 Indexed cost of acquisition is determined as under :- Estimated Fair market value of Land as on 01-04-1981 (Year of acquisition – 1971) [As per valuation report attached] 7,434,000 Indexed cost of acquisition[74,34,000*463/100] 34,419,420 3. The assessee sold the property to Reliance Infocom Ltd., under a sale deed

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

168 Taxmann.com 39); iii) Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (83 taxmann.com 348) (Del. HC) iv) Cygnus Inv & Fin. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 117/Kol/2018)(ITAT Kol) v) ACIT Vs. Adhunik Cement Ltd. (ITA No. 1375/Kol/17 (ITAT Kol). 12. The ld DR , per contra, vehemently opposed the arguments presented by the ld counsel for the assessee