DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

36(1)(va) of the Act to only those payments made beyond the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. From the perusal of grounds, broadly two issues are involved, one relating to Transfer Pricing

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

1. With respect to the transactions involving sale/transfer of power for the Chaliyama and Kamanda CPP, the Appellant adopted rates with reference to and slightly lower than the grid tariff rate (applicable to a power distribution company). The said transactions, being in the nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method

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:

1. With respect to the transactions involving sale/transfer of power for the Chaliyama and Kamanda CPP, the Appellant adopted rates with reference to and slightly lower than the grid tariff rate (applicable to a power distribution company). The said transactions, being in the nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method

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:

1. With respect to the transactions involving sale/transfer of power for the Chaliyama and Kamanda CPP, the Appellant adopted rates with reference to and slightly lower than the grid tariff rate (applicable to a power distribution company). The said transactions, being in the nature of a Specified Domestic Transaction had been benchmarked by the assessee using the CUP Method

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

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 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 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

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

1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 issued by ld. TPO, finally confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding

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

1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 issued by ld. TPO, finally confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding

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

1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 issued by ld. TPO, finally confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding

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

1,074,672,729 Ld. AO after considering the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 05.12.2016 issued by ld. TPO, finally confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

36(1)(viii) by Rs.30,80,96,948/ in his order which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores by invoking Rule

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

36(1)(viii) by Rs.30,80,96,948/ in his order which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores by invoking Rule

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

1 to 5 of the appeal would reveal that the sole issue raised by the revenue through these grounds is relating to the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.124,76,75,528/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the price of the power transferred by the section

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 Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence