DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92F(ii) lays down that "'arm's length price” means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions." Sec.92(v) defines “transaction” to include "an arrangement, undertaking or action in concert,- (A) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is formal or in writing

ORGANON (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

40,04,097/- (Rs.2,25,38,783/- minus 85,34,686/-), was worked out by the Transfer Pricing Officer in respect of these international transactions of the assessee-company with its Associated Enterprise and in the assessment completed under section

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

40(a)(ia) of the said Act. 2. You have also alleged in your said purported notice dated 18th March, 2015 that since the Assessing Officer did not disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section) to one or more other members of the controlled group (the recipient(s)).” Thus, as per this definition of services, first there should be an activity performed by one of the members of a group of related parties which lies within the ambit of definition of activity (the 'activity test') and second, that activity should result in a benefit

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section) to one or more other members of the controlled group (the recipient(s)).” Thus, as per this definition of services, first there should be an activity performed by one of the members of a group of related parties which lies within the ambit of definition of activity (the 'activity test') and second, that activity should result in a benefit

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

transfer price for power was considered by the assessee equal to the price at which the electricity was procured by the manufacturing undertakings from the respective SEBs. Referring to explanation to section 80IA, the A.O. held that for the purposes of section 80IA,the term 'market value' means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.13,71,40,567/- computed in respect of the transaction referred to in Section 92BA(iii) & (v) read

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

transfer pricing principles of strict product comparability, whilst determining the Arm’s Length Price of power, in the instant case. 21. It is also important to note that the non-eligible (manufacturing) unit comes under the category of High Tension (HT) industrial consumers of electricity. Thus, energy charges for HT Industrial Consumers at corresponding voltage and demand

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:

transfer pricing principles of strict product comparability, whilst determining the Arm’s Length Price of power, in the instant case. I.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rungta Mines Ltd 21. It is also important to note that the non-eligible (manufacturing) unit comes under the category of High Tension (HT) industrial consumers of electricity. Thus, energy charges

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:

transfer pricing principles of strict product comparability, whilst determining the Arm’s Length Price of power, in the instant case. I.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rungta Mines Ltd 21. It is also important to note that the non-eligible (manufacturing) unit comes under the category of High Tension (HT) industrial consumers of electricity. Thus, energy charges

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 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 units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 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 units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 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 units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92BA(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, such intra-unit transfer of power was reported by the transfer pricing auditor in Form 3CEB for AY 2014-15 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 units was M/s. Kesoram Industries

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

40,004/-, which is made, in respect of sale of finished goods by the assessee to its AE [AT & S AG(Europe)] for further sale AT & S India (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 of the same to individual customers in Europe at the same price and in the same quantity. The assessee entered into international transaction with

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

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 (TPO): (a).Arm`s Length Price adjustment for A.Y.2002­03 at Rs. 5,19,77,000/­ (b).Arm`s Length Price adjustment for A.Y.2003­04 at Rs. 10,02,37,000/­ Other Grounds (i).Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting provision for payment of gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Act and addition made on account