PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

144C of the Act. Since the assessee entered into international transactions with Associate Enterprise (AE) during the year and Form 3CEB stood submitted, reference was made to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘ld. TPO’) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. The ld. TPO made certain upward and downward adjustments and further when the assessee approached

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

144C of the Act. Since the assessee entered into international transactions with Associate Enterprise (AE) during the year and Form 3CEB stood submitted, reference was made to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘ld. TPO’) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act. The ld. TPO made certain upward and downward adjustments and further when the assessee approached

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 43B of the Act without any basis, in the computation sheet forming an integral part of the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 6.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting claim of deduction

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

TDS. As we have already seen the payments to be made by GRSE are net of taxes on income if any payable in India. In other words such taxes have to be borne by GRSE. Sec.195A of the provides that in a case, where under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income referred to in Chapter

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

TDS. As we have already seen the payments to be made by GRSE are net of taxes on income if any payable in India. In other words such taxes have to be borne by GRSE. Sec.195A of the provides that in a case, where under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income referred to in Chapter

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS claim was modified and increased. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 11.08.2011. The case of the assessee thereafter selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

TDS claim was modified and increased. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 11.08.2011. The case of the assessee thereafter selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

144C(13), r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

144C(13), r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was granted by the CPC, which was sent by mail to the assessee on 25/05/2023; the validity of the intimation served by the DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 25.05.2023 and bearing the date 29.12.2021 is claimed to be barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The other grounds relating to section 115P of the Act was also raised

OUTOTEC(FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C of the Act dated 10.01.2022 wherein it noted that identical issue on taxability of income from testing and other services was considered by the DRP in assessee’s own case for AY 2016-17 as under:- “5.1 The above issue was discussed in details by the DRP in AY 2016-17. The facts of the case are the same

OUTOTEC (FINLAND) OY (NOW MERGED WITH "METSO MINERALS OY" AND THE MERGED ENTITY HAS BEEN RENAMED TO METSO OUTOTEC FINLAND OY),HARYANA vs. ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result,both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

144C of the Act dated 10.01.2022 wherein it noted that identical issue on taxability of income from testing and other services was considered by the DRP in assessee’s own case for AY 2016-17 as under:- “5.1 The above issue was discussed in details by the DRP in AY 2016-17. The facts of the case are the same

M/S. EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini] I.T.A. No. 278/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 2 I.T.A. No. 278/Kol/2016 Assessment year: 2011-12 Assessment year : 2012-13 Assessment year : 2011-12 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that this is the second innings of proceedings between the parties. The assessee has raised three substantive grounds

NATWEST MARKETS PLC,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 23.03.2022. The assessee / appellant is a company that is incorporated in the United Kingdom and is a tax resident of the United Kingdom. During Natwest Markets PLC; A.Y. 2020-21 the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2020-21, the assessee carried on its business of banking in India through

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S REDTECH NETWORK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

section 144C(10) as once it was established that" the transaction were not in the nature of capital transaction or derivative transaction the AO ought not to have disallowed the same for which reliance was place on decision by ITAT in the case of Agawal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd Vs CIT 257 ITR 235(MP) followed in DCIT Vs. Shan Sundar

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

144C r.w. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. 2. The assessee appellant’s first substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenge correctness of transfer price adjustment amounting to ₹345,51,562/- in course of assessment as pertaining to its international transactions with its overseas associate enterprise (AE). This assessee is a company providing

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

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

144C and read with the order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as 'TPO'), under section 92CA(3) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio, 1.2. That the Learned DRP erred in not holding that the order of TPO and the draft order of the AO (in so far it relates to transfer

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

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

144C and read with the order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as 'TPO'), under section 92CA(3) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio, 1.2. That the Learned DRP erred in not holding that the order of TPO and the draft order of the AO (in so far it relates to transfer