M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price for the adjustment made to the international transactions of the Assessee. 21. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price for the adjustment made to the international transactions of the Assessee. 21. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital at any point in time. The Appellant states that from inception, clauses 2.1, 3 and 4.8 of the said deed dated August 24, 2009 were understood by the Appellant and by TGBIL in the manner recorded in a letter dated 23 March 2010, filed through an affidavit before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Hon’ble Tribunal”) dated

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital at any point in time. The Appellant states that from inception, clauses 2.1, 3 and 4.8 of the said deed dated August 24, 2009 were understood by the Appellant and by TGBIL in the manner recorded in a letter dated 23 March 2010, filed through an affidavit before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Hon’ble Tribunal”) dated

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and applied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the assessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the intra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

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

3 relate to the adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. It was argued before the Bench that the Ld. TPO, the Ld. DRP and the Ld. AO had all erred in making an adjustment of ₹12,00,057/- in relation to issuance of corporate guarantee on behalf of Tega Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (“Tega Singapore”) and not appreciating the fact that

M/S TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. Brief facts of the case 3.1 The assessee is primarily engaged in the development and manufacture of specialized wear resistant rubber lining offering a range of rubber, PU and ceramic based lining products. During the financial year 2020-21 relevant to the assessment year 2021-22 the assessee has entered into international transaction pertaining to guarantee for loans taken

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

3, Department has challenged that services received by the assessee are shareholder activity/stewardship services which issue has nowhere been raised in the proceedings before the ld. TPO, ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A). In the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the shareholder/stewardship services which means, services in the nature of simply oversight function in order

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

3, Department has challenged that services received by the assessee are shareholder activity/stewardship services which issue has nowhere been raised in the proceedings before the ld. TPO, ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A). In the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the shareholder/stewardship services which means, services in the nature of simply oversight function in order

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

92C of the Act\nread with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and\napplied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the\nassessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the\nintra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

3 6. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a limited company and has provided corporate guarantee on behalf of its subsidiary/step down subsidiary, namely, Tega Holding Pte Ltd., Singapore (‘Tega Singapore’) and Tega Industries Chile SpA, Chile (‘Tega Chile’). It is submitted that the original transaction took place in AY 2011-12 wherein the appellant set up Tega

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle. 2.From

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle. 2.From

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of such eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer has been made at Arm’s Length Price (in short, the ‘ALP’). The profits of the eligible undertaking should be ordinary, having regard to ALP. To discover the ALP as mandated in Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle