RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 to section 28. He also referred to 9 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based on his interpretation of the CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based on his interpretation of the CBDT Instruction no. 3/2010 dated 23.03.2010 and based on his interpretation

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Section 263". 7. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents in the present case what has to be seen is whether the AO has made enquiries about the transaction which the assessee termed as ‘slump sale’ of its only manufacturing edible oil unit at Haldia. If the answer is in the affirmative i.e. yes then the second question

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]

transfer pricing adjustment, if any, has to be made to the quantum of the eligible deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act and not to the ‘Business Income’ as held by the Ld. DRP. In the garb of making downward adjustment to the quantum of profits of the CPP eligible for 27 I.T.A. No.127/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Star Paper

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Transfer Pricing Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) on 30.10.2018 13. Notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO on 26.11.2018 14. Order passed u/s. 14393) by the AO on 28.12.2018 13. Before we controvert to the legal issue held in favour of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), let us look into section 153 which reads as under: “Time

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

90 and 91 of Part B of the paper book) . It is well settled that for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis and selecting most appropriate method, i.e. either CPM or TNMM, one needs to appropriately evaluate the functions performed, risks assumed and assets utilized of the parties involved in the 21 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 transaction

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

90 and 91 of Part B of the paper book) . It is well settled that for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis and selecting most appropriate method, i.e. either CPM or TNMM, one needs to appropriately evaluate the functions performed, risks assumed and assets utilized of the parties involved in the 21 Landis + Gyr Limited, AY 2007-08 transaction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

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

transfer pricing grounds) are dismissed. 25. Now, we shall take other miscellaneous grounds raised by the Revenue. 26.(i).Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting provision for payment of gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Act and addition made on account of contribution to superannuation fund U/s 40A(9) of The Act. (a). Provision for gratuity

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)

Price (CUP) method. 3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

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)

90%) effected by the AE were of products purchased from the assessee. The AE made only emergency purchases abroad and was incorporated merely to market the assessee's products. Given such economic interdependence on the AE no adjustment under the transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X was required. 4.2.2 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following judgments:  ITAT(Delhi