DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

transfer pricing adjustment. In determining what period of time an independent enterprise would accept, tax administrations may wish to consider evidence of the commercial strategies evident in the country in which the business strategy is being pursued. In the end, however, the most important consideration is whether the strategy in question could plausibly be expected to prove profitable within

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

transfer pricing provisions of the Act. In the instant case, on assuming that DEC, China participates in the control and management of its PE (i.e. DEC-PO) and hence falls under one of the clauses of sub-section (1) of section 92A

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

transfer pricing provisions of the Act. In the instant case, on assuming that DEC, China participates in the control and management of its PE (i.e. DEC-PO) and hence falls under one of the clauses of sub-section (1) of section 92A

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

transfer pricing provisions contained in sections 92 and 92A to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

transfer pricing provisions contained in sections 92 and 92A to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules

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

transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA. 8.1 A perusal of the Explanation to Section 80IA(8) would reveal that in case of specified domestic transactions as referred to section 92BA of the Act, the market value will be the arm’s length price as in clause (ii) of section

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 of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA. 8.1 A perusal of the Explanation to Section 80IA(8) would reveal that in case of specified domestic transactions as referred to section 92BA of the Act, the market value will be the arm’s length price as in clause (ii) of section

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 of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA. 8.1 A perusal of the Explanation to Section 80IA(8) would reveal that in case of specified domestic transactions as referred to section 92BA of the Act, the market value will be the arm’s length price as in clause (ii) of section

TCG DIGITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1571/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

transfer pricing provisions contained in sections 92 and 92A to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

transferred or services provided in the international transaction;” We note that ld TPO/AO in the assessee`s case under consideration has ignored the conditions prescribed in sub-clause (a) (ii) of sub rule (1), which states that comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

transferred or services provided in the international transaction;” We note that ld TPO/AO in the assessee`s case under consideration has ignored the conditions prescribed in sub-clause (a) (ii) of sub rule (1), which states that comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

transfer pricing as provided under the Act. It referred to section 92B which defines 'International transaction', section 92A which defines

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

transfer pricing as provided under the Act. It referred to section 92B which defines 'International transaction', section 92A which defines

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1591/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-2006) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. Development Consultants Tax, Cir-11, Kolkata, Ltd.,24B, Development House, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 8900 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 92A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The DClL provides engineering services to its clients who are engaged in turnkey projects at various industrial sites. It acts as a distributor undertaking marketing activities. The DCPL has TP study report, prepared by PWC ( big 4 audit firm) and analysis made by the assessee in its TP study report to justify

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

transfer pricing as provided under the Act. It referred to section 92B which defines 'International transaction', section 92A which defines

T.K.M.GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tkm Global Logistics Limited.........………........................................................……………….…......Appellant Room No. 710 & 711 7Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabct 2426 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-15(1), Kolkata………..........….………....…....Respondent Appearances By: Mr. Ajit Korde, Advocate & Ms. Rachna Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 26Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the internal comparables used by the company for benchmarking of the transaction, without internal comparables used by the company for benchmarking of the transaction, without internal comparables used by the company for benchmarking of the transaction, without giving any reason, whatsoeve giving any reason, whatsoever. Thus, he submits that the Assessing Officer/TPO violated r. Thus