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 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, or a number

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 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, or a number

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

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic 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

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

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

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 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic 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

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) ..

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic 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

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)

section 144C(5) of the Act dated 15.10.2015 for the Asst Year 2011-12. 2. Though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before us with regard to the transfer pricing addition, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the instant case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

55,79,540 disallowed on ground of excess depreciation claim, should be allowed. Thus ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." is squarely covered in favour of the appellant-company by its own judgment have also perused the Industrial Scheme in terms of which the appellant-company received subsidy by way of sales tax remission from the State Government

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

55,79,540 disallowed on ground of excess depreciation claim, should be allowed. Thus ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." is squarely covered in favour of the appellant-company by its own judgment have also perused the Industrial Scheme in terms of which the appellant-company received subsidy by way of sales tax remission from the State Government

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

55,79,540 disallowed on ground of excess depreciation claim, should be allowed. Thus ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." is squarely covered in favour of the appellant-company by its own judgment have also perused the Industrial Scheme in terms of which the appellant-company received subsidy by way of sales tax remission from the State Government

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

55,79,540 disallowed on ground of excess depreciation claim, should be allowed. Thus ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." is squarely covered in favour of the appellant-company by its own judgment have also perused the Industrial Scheme in terms of which the appellant-company received subsidy by way of sales tax remission from the State Government

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

section 92CA(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer, to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee had not filed Form 3CEB along with its return of income for AY 2007-08.The assessee is a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China. It is engaged mainly in turnkey contracting and sub-contracting for power

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

section 92CA(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer, to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee had not filed Form 3CEB along with its return of income for AY 2007-08.The assessee is a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China. It is engaged mainly in turnkey contracting and sub-contracting for power

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

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

transfer pricing study report paragraph no. 5.1.6 contained in the transfer pricing study report – page no. 197 of the page no. 197 of the paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case that no third party would have provided the loan to Tega Bahamas given the minimal