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

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

2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international 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 transaction

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)

14 IT(SS)A Nos.17 & 20/Kol/2018 & Himatsingka Seide Ltd., AY 2008-09 or specified domestic transactions entered into by the assessee, he may with the previous approval of Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, refer the computation of arms’ length price in relation to such transactions u/s. 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Further, sub-section (2

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating to Rs. 2,64,43,540/-. The order of the TPO was confirmed by the DRP by its order dated April 28, 2017 and the adjustment was adopted

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating to Rs. 2,64,43,540/-. The order of the TPO was confirmed by the DRP by its order dated April 28, 2017 and the adjustment was adopted

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act were introduced with effect from 01.06.2010 to stop the transfer of shares below the fair market value. It was stated that only an allotment of share comes into existence and the shares were allotted, the price fixed by the issuing company was paid, the shares were allotted to the group companies

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

14,45,34,600/- u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 is confirmed. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.1 is dismissed.” 7. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order considering the relevant provisions of the Act. Similar issue arose before the Coordinate Bench

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A amounting

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A amounting

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

transferred to the buyer. The seller gets a right to get the price of the goods and the buyer has a corresponding obligation to pay it, both as per the contract of sale and under the law. Therefore, debt is incurred by the buyer of the purchase-price which he is obliged to pay. The debt arises from the unwillingness

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

transferred to the buyer. The seller gets a right to get the price of the goods and the buyer has a corresponding obligation to pay it, both as per the contract of sale and under the law. Therefore, debt is incurred by the buyer of the purchase-price which he is obliged to pay. The debt arises from the unwillingness

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

14) of section 2;\n(d) \"property" [means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely:]\n(i) immovable property being land or building or both;\n(ii) shares and securities;\n(iii) jewellery;\n(iv) archaeological collections;\n(v) drawings;\n(vi) paintings;\n(vii) sculptures;\n(viii) any work of art; [or]\n(ix) bullion;]\n(e) \"relative

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

transfer of leasehold interest/rights, which is in consonance with the provisions of section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

14,22,413/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming a refund of Rs. 11,91,19,231/-. The appellant's case was se- lected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 28 August 2015 was received by the appellant on 3 September 2015. In response to the notices u/s 143(2

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

14,22,413/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act and claiming a refund of Rs. 11,91,19,231/-. The appellant's case was se- lected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 28 August 2015 was received by the appellant on 3 September 2015. In response to the notices u/s 143(2

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Price adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee and grant consequential relief to the assessee. Hence Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal are partly allowed. 7. Ground no. 4 relates to non-grant of deduction of Rs. 52,91,000/- u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. AO did not allow the deduction holding as under