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

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

b. No rationale behind such an action was questioned. (xi) Foreign currency transaction loss Note 22(c) & 23 not verified as per provision of section 43 of the Act. (xii) Receipts per From 26AS vis-a-vis those disclosed in the accounts were also not checked”. The ld. Principal CIT accordingly issued a notice under section 163 to the assessee

M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

144C(4) is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and therefore be annulled. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. TPO/the Ld. AO/ and the Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the appellant by Rs. 13,52,49,494/-. " 4. The Ld. Counsel first

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

144C(4) is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and therefore be annulled. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. TPO/the Ld. AO/ and the Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the appellant by Rs. 13,52,49,494/-. " 4. The Ld. Counsel first

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(5) of the Act dated 19.11.2015 for the M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 Assessment Year [ in short Asst Year] 2011-12. Both these cross appeals are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. RATE OF TAX Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(5) of the Act dated 19.11.2015 for the M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 Assessment Year [ in short Asst Year] 2011-12. Both these cross appeals are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. RATE OF TAX Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts

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

15% by way of 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

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

15% by way of 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

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)

b) Denial of claim of bonus and EPF u/s 43B of the Act. (c) Short grant of credit for TDS/TCS. (d) Denial of claim u/s 80M of the Act. For this issue, additional grounds of appeal have also been taken. 1.2 The assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1.0 On the facts and circumstances

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. 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

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.06.2017 pursuant to the Directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short the ld DRP] dated 09.05.2017 and 29.08.2016 respectively for the Assessment Years [ in short Asst Year] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. As identical issues are involved in both these appeals

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.06.2017 pursuant to the Directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short the ld DRP] dated 09.05.2017 and 29.08.2016 respectively for the Assessment Years [ in short Asst Year] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. As identical issues are involved in both these appeals

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

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

144C(13)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 29.11.2016 for assessment year 2012-13 and grounds raised by assessee read as under:- “1.0 Determination of arm's length price for Corporate Guarantee fees 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2600/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Philips India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata

b) Order passed by the ld TPO u/s 92CA(3) r.w.s. 92CA(5) & 144C(5) of the Act dated 25.1.2017 c) Final Assessment Order passed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 27.2.2017. Hence we hold that the passive observations made by the ld TPO had been completely ignored

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