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

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

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

prices at which the electricity was supplied by the respective SEBs to the assessee-company (excluding duties & cess etc. levied thereon) to be the transfer value for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The rates so determined by CIT(A) are as follows: Aggrieved by such appellate orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1443/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..….….......….....….……......Appellant Vs. M/S. Kesoram Industries Ltd……………..................……....………………..………………....…Respondent Birla Building 8Th Floor 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aabck 2417 P] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 31/12/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 93 (Ninety Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. After Hearing Rival Contentions, We Find That Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Of The Appeal Relating To A Sole Substantive Issue, Reads As Follows:- “1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting Assessee'S Claim & Allowing Relief As The Hon'Ble

price as defined in clause (it) of Section 92F,. where the transfer o where the transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic f such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in Section 92BA ". transaction referred to in Section 92BA ". 3. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DHUNSERI VENTURES LTD.(FORMERLY:DHUNSERI PETROCHEM LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer value of power procured by the non-eligible undertaking from the eligible unit. 7. The Ld. TPO's reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITC Limited (supra) is wholly distinguishable since the appellant has sufficiently, demonstrated that not only is it is permitted to supply power independently to unrelated parties

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