ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 96,37,85,635/- towards capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act in the facts

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting out of profits by manipulating prices charged or paid in international transactions, thereby eroding the country’s tax base. The new section 92 is, therefore, not intended to be applied in cases where the adoption of the arm’s length price determined under the regulations would result in a decrease in the overall

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

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

45,62,079/- in respect of export of finished goods by the appellant to its parent company for further sale to independent customers at same prices. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. DRP erred in rejecting the arm's length price analysis undertaken by the appellant under

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing regulations as envisaged in the Act. Further, we respectfully submit that there exist no circumstances as enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of section (3) of section 92C, which would warrant your goodself to disregard the analysis undertaken by the assessee and undertake a fresh analysis.) 3.7.6. The assessee pointed out the error in computation

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 10.4. The ld. CIT D/R further submitted that the power

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]

3. Since both the issues are covered by various judgments of this Court, we do not find it necessary to record facts at any length. Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 22.11.2011 in Tax Appeal No.2092/2010 in somewhat similar controversy observed as under : 14 I.T.A. No.127/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Star Paper Mills Limited ………. 6. Under sub-Section

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

3,84,57,470 15,35,31,089 tools and capital equipment Payment of service 5,05,74,785 charges­ for IT services, sales support, marketing & advertisement and sorting services Payment for 79,34,650 technical know­how (Royalty) Income side of Sale of tools 13,04,115 Profit& Loss A/c Export of finished 45,83,01,658 45

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 27/ 92CA(3) of the Act on 27/01/2015. At para 6 of this order, the ALP of the a 6 of this order, the ALP of the international transaction has been determined as follows: international transaction has been determined as follows:- “ 7.0. Since

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Itc Infotech India Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited Vs. Kolkata. (Pan: Aaaci7376Q) Virginia House, 37, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Bikash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

Section 1.482-5 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRC)) The Assessee has also produced a compendium of various judgments by the higher authorities which have held that the least complex entity should be the tested party (including the Kolkata jurisdiction rulings in case of Development Consultants Limited (ITA No. 1591/KOL/2010) and Landis + Gyr Limited (ITA No. 37 and 1623/Kol/2012)).While

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Itc Infotech India Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited Vs. Kolkata. (Pan: Aaaci7376Q) Virginia House, 37, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Bikash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

Section 1.482-5 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRC)) The Assessee has also produced a compendium of various judgments by the higher authorities which have held that the least complex entity should be the tested party (including the Kolkata jurisdiction rulings in case of Development Consultants Limited (ITA No. 1591/KOL/2010) and Landis + Gyr Limited (ITA No. 37 and 1623/Kol/2012)).While

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

section 92CA(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same assessee, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we take Revenue

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

section 92CA(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to same assessee, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we take Revenue

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

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

section 92C of the Act. It is contrary to Indian TP regulations and not acceptable under the Indian TP regulations. Similar view has been taken by ITAT in case of Skodo Auto India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. ACIT (122TTJ 699), M.S.S. India (P.) Ltd. (123 ITJ 657) and Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [136TTJ 212). The ld DR pointed

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee during the year had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE for short) for supplying the PCB manufactured by it. The Assessing Officer after having the approval from the CIT made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

3) of the Act and to restrict consequential addition made in terms of section 92CA(4) to that extent, without appreciating the facts of the case. I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 12 of 25 13. During the course of appellate proceedings before

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

3) of the Act and to restrict consequential addition made in terms of section 92CA(4) to that extent, without appreciating the facts of the case. I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 12 of 25 13. During the course of appellate proceedings before

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

3) of the Act and to restrict consequential addition made in terms of section 92CA(4) to that extent, without appreciating the facts of the case. I.T.A. No 2723/MUM/2006 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & I.T.A. No. 164/MUM/2011 Assessment year: 2002-2003 & ITA-3183/MUM/2006 Assessment Year: 2002-2003 Page 12 of 25 13. During the course of appellate proceedings before