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

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

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

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

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]

Section 92BA of the Act. The transfer pricing auditor duly reported this intra-unit transfer in Form 3CEB filed for AY 2016-17 and the said specified domestic transaction was benchmarked following the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [hereinafter referred to as CUP]. Perusal of the Transfer Pricing Study Report placed at Pages 31 to 67 of the paper-book, reveals

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, 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)

63,470/- on brokerage, security transaction tax and other similar charges. Suffice to say, it fails to dispute the crucial fact recorded in the CIT(A)’s findings that the assessee had capitalized the above direct expenditure than claiming it as I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 & I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 revenue expenditure

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)

63,470/- on brokerage, security transaction tax and other similar charges. Suffice to say, it fails to dispute the crucial fact recorded in the CIT(A)’s findings that the assessee had capitalized the above direct expenditure than claiming it as I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 & I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 revenue expenditure

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)

63,470/- on brokerage, security transaction tax and other similar charges. Suffice to say, it fails to dispute the crucial fact recorded in the CIT(A)’s findings that the assessee had capitalized the above direct expenditure than claiming it as I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 & I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 revenue expenditure

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)

63,470/- on brokerage, security transaction tax and other similar charges. Suffice to say, it fails to dispute the crucial fact recorded in the CIT(A)’s findings that the assessee had capitalized the above direct expenditure than claiming it as I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 & I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 revenue expenditure

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Officer, the price determined was one, and not more than one in each case. Hence there was no occasion to allow 5% variation therein. Hence, this ground is rejected.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 12. At the outset we observed that similar issued was also raised

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Transfer Pricing Officer, the price determined was one, and not more than one in each case. Hence there was no occasion to allow 5% variation therein. Hence, this ground is rejected.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 12. At the outset we observed that similar issued was also raised

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 :-

63,26,73,000/-) and voluminous purchase results in lower ) and voluminous purchase results in lower prices in the open market and in this scenario, the TPO has made erroneous prices in the open market and in this scenario, the TPO has made erroneous prices in the open market and in this scenario, the TPO has made erroneous application

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

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

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

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were owned