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

1) For the purposes of sub-section (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

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

iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non- eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party’ as it regularly

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:

iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party’ as it regularly

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:

iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB and it was benchmarked by applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [herein after referred to as ‘CUP Method’]. For benchmarking the transfer rate of power, the non-eligible (manufacturing) units were considered as the ‘tested party’ as it regularly

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

iii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) 3. We have heard the submissions of the assessee and have perused the relevant documents filed before us as well as judicial pronouncements placed before us. Respectfully, following the binding judgments referred before us and taking totality of facts and circumstances, we are convinced that additional grounds goes

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

1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having

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

1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having

GAJRAJ TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2015-16 Gajraj Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs. Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan: Aaecg5268M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27/09/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata, Dated 23/12/2017. 2. Assessee Has Taken As Many As Ten Grounds & The Issues Involved In These Grounds Relate To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S 35(1)(Iii) & 35Ac Of The Act For Contribution Made By It Under Respective Sections & In Respect Of Credit Of Rs.10,00,000/- Towards Advance Tax Paid, Not Given In Computation Of Tax As Reflected In Form 26As. Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity.

35(1)(iii) and u/s 35AC by the Central Government/CBDT only after strict compliance of law. The approval is granted for after various levels of scrutiny and checks and to the concerns of evident track record and doing research activity. It is also a fact that the three trusts/societies were eligible to receive the contributions from assessee as duly notified

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

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

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

iii. technical support required in respect of training etc. of Doctors and other health personnel. iv. the operation of accident and emergency services; disaster planning; environmental requirement; intensive care units; medical records; information system; policies and procedures development; professional relations; quality assurance; and any other aspect of the operation of the Hospital which is linked to the quality of service

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

iii. technical support required in respect of training etc. of Doctors and other health personnel. iv. the operation of accident and emergency services; disaster planning; environmental requirement; intensive care units; medical records; information system; policies and procedures development; professional relations; quality assurance; and any other aspect of the operation of the Hospital which is linked to the quality of service

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

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

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

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

iii) Amount of consideration. 4.1. It is stated that assessee was in possession of leasehold property which has been transferred for a consideration received by the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR has referred to the provisions of section 269UA(d) which defines the ‘immovable property’ and also section 2(47)(vi) which defines the term ‘transfer’. By referring to these

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this