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

Section 92CA(2) of the Act to the Dy. CIT,TP-2, Kolkata (TPO). The Ld. TPO rejected the above benchmarking analysis as I.T.A No.286/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2019-20 Rungta Mines Ltd according to him this was in contravention to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. ITC Ltd’ (236 Taxman

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:

Section 92CA(2) of the Act to the Dy. CIT,TP-2, Kolkata (TPO). The Ld. TPO rejected the above benchmarking analysis as according to him this was in contravention to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. ITC Ltd’ (236 Taxman 612) rendered for the AY 2002-03 and observed that

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:

Section 92CA(2) of the Act to the Dy. CIT,TP-2, Kolkata (TPO). The Ld. TPO rejected the above benchmarking analysis as according to him this was in contravention to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. ITC Ltd’ (236 Taxman 612) rendered for the AY 2002-03 and observed that

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

transferred to any other business at "market value". Explanation to section 801A(8) provides for the definition of market value. The Explanation was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2013 wherein clause (ii) was inserted relating to arm's length price

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

transferred to any other business at "market value". Explanation to section 801A(8) provides for the definition of market value. The Explanation was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2013 wherein clause (ii) was inserted relating to arm's length price

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

transferred to any other business at "market value". Explanation to section 801A(8) provides for the definition of market value. The Explanation was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2013 wherein clause (ii) was inserted relating to arm's length price

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD , KOLKATA

In the result all the four appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

transferred to any other business at "market value". Explanation to section 801A(8) provides for the definition of market value. The Explanation was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2013 wherein clause (ii) was inserted relating to arm's length price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer computed the adjustment at ₹91,71,780 and ₹87,75,918/-\nrespectively for both eligible unit and non-eligible unit.\n08. The Id. CIT (A) deleted the said adjustment by observing and holding\nas under:-\n\"It is well known that higher or lower profit of a business unit in comparison to other\nunits

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

transfer pricing proceedings when the facts of the case including the underlying arguments have not altered. 4. Non-grant of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Appellant under

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

801A after adjusting entire interest by applying provision u/s. 80IA(10) whereas on fact the said interest is relatable to both normal income and income eligible u/s. 80IA of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA ignoring

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL./JOINT/DY./ASSTT. COMMISSIONER/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

M/S BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 801A(4)(i) by observing that there is no condition to transfer the infrastructural facility to the GoAP or Specified Authority without considering the fact that this condition has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2001. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in affirming the action

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units was benchmarked at the rates of Rs.5.49/unit, Rs.5.50/unit & Rs.5.91/unit by applying the CUP Method viz., the landed price at which the manufacturing unit would have procured power from the respective SEBs at West Bengal, Kerala & Gujarat. After deducting the expenses incurred by these three power

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units was benchmarked at the rates of Rs.5.49/unit, Rs.5.50/unit & Rs.5.91/unit by applying the CUP Method viz., the landed price at which the manufacturing unit would have procured power from the respective SEBs at West Bengal, Kerala & Gujarat. After deducting the expenses incurred by these three power

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units was benchmarked at the rates of Rs.5.49/unit, Rs.5.50/unit & Rs.5.91/unit by applying the CUP Method viz., the landed price at which the manufacturing unit would have procured power from the respective SEBs at West Bengal, Kerala & Gujarat. After deducting the expenses incurred by these three power

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units was benchmarked at the rates of Rs.5.49/unit, Rs.5.50/unit & Rs.5.91/unit by applying the CUP Method viz., the landed price at which the manufacturing unit would have procured power from the respective SEBs at West Bengal, Kerala & Gujarat. After deducting the expenses incurred by these three power

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

801A(8), the electricity transferred from the power plants to the carbon black manufacturing units was benchmarked at the rates of Rs.5.49/unit, Rs.5.50/unit & Rs.5.91/unit by applying the CUP Method viz., the landed price at which the manufacturing unit would have procured power from the respective SEBs at West Bengal, Kerala & Gujarat. After deducting the expenses incurred by these three power

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

transfer of power when sold by the assesse or power generation station to the State Electricity Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court note that the price at which surplus power was supplied by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was determined entirely by State Electricity Board in terms of statutory regulations and contractual terms and that such a price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

801A of the Act will be allowed as claimed by the assessee ignoring the downward adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that compensation paid to obtain mining lease is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances