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 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 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 in the open

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 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 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 in the open

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

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 in a comparable uncontrolled transaction

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

6,40,792/- in the computation of its book profit in terms of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act on account of expenditure relatable to exempt dividend income. Whilst working out the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules under the normal computation provisions, ld. CIT(A) made

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

Transfer Pricing Officer.” 5.2. A perusal of the sub-Section (5) of Section 92CA would reveal that a TPO may amend the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for the purpose of rectification of any mistake apparent from record in such order and the provisions of Section 154 will accordingly apply. Sub- Section (5), therefore, specifically provides that

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T. (TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

Transfer Pricing Officer.” 5.2. A perusal of the sub-Section (5) of Section 92CA would reveal that a TPO may amend the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for the purpose of rectification of any mistake apparent from record in such order and the provisions of Section 154 will accordingly apply. Sub- Section (5), therefore, specifically provides that

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act were introduced with effect from 01.06.2010 to stop the transfer of shares below the fair market value. It was stated that only an allotment of share comes into existence and the shares were allotted, the price fixed by the issuing company was paid, the shares were allotted to the group companies

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price lower than the fair market value of shares which practice the section wanted to plug. 8.5.8 In Sudhir Memon HUF v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 176, Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal has interpreted the word “Receive” used under section 56 (2) (viia) and held that 'Receipt' is a word or term of wide import and would include the acquisition

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

2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance by the Ld. AO as per Rule 8D did not find place in clause (f) of Section 115JB. 4.1 On the farts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in making disallowance while making MAT computation on account of section

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

2) & (3) of Section 14A which prescribes for estimated disallowance by the Ld. AO as per Rule 8D did not find place in clause (f) of Section 115JB. 4.1 On the farts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in making disallowance while making MAT computation on account of section

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2 and 2.1 to 2.7 relate to the transfer pricing

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2 and 2.1 to 2.7 relate to the transfer pricing

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

price of Rs.90/share and therefore even going by the logic\npropounded by NFAC, there was no undervaluation of shares and thus it could not be\nalleged that the appellant had issued inadequate value of shares in lieu of the real estate\nundertaking received under the scheme of demergerto invoke the rigors of Section\n56(2

MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

price lower than the fair market value of shares which practice the section wanted to plug. 8.5.8 In Sudhir Memon HUF v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 176, Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal has interpreted the word “Receive” used under section 56 (2) (viia) and held that 'Receipt' is a word or term of wide import and would include the acquisition

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

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A amounting

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

transfer pricing adjustment stating that the transaction between Assessee and its AE is at arm's length. AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. 3 7. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO for disallowance under section 14A amounting

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub- section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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]

6. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/AO have erred in making transfer pricing adjustment to the transaction of ‘payment of sales margin’ to AEs failing to determining the arm’s length price of transaction by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method in an inappropriate manner. 7. On the facts of the case

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]

6. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/AO have erred in making transfer pricing adjustment to the transaction of ‘payment of sales margin’ to AEs failing to determining the arm’s length price of transaction by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method in an inappropriate manner. 7. On the facts of the case