MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain 6,30,000/- 1,77,25,000/- Operating Revenues 153,98,09,000/- Expenditure debited to P& L Account 181,98,66,000/- Less Bank Interest and charges 3,58,73,000/- Operating Expenditure 178,39,93,000/- Operating Profit 24,41,84,000/- Operating Profit/Operating Cost (-)13.68% Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (-)15.85% 3.6. The ld TPO keeping in view

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

92C(4), it constitutes a bar against lowering income of the non-resident AE, as a result of lowering the deduction in the hands of the Indian AE, rather than as I.T.A. Nos.1548 and 1549/Kol/2009 Assessment years: 2003-04 and 2004-05 Page 24 of 41 enabling a higher deduction in the hands of the Indian AE as a result

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

Capital Gain (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

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

capital adjustment, it was observed that the margin was 13% earned from transactions with related parties was found comparable to margin of 14% earned from uncontrolled transactions and was therefore held to be at arm's length by the CIT(Appeals). The difference in margin of 1% was well within the permitted range of +/ - 5% allowed in second proviso Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

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

capital adjustment, it was observed that the margin was 13% earned from transactions with related parties was found comparable to margin of 14% earned from uncontrolled transactions and was therefore held to be at arm's length by the CIT(Appeals). The difference in margin of 1% was well within the permitted range of +/ - 5% allowed in second proviso Section

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

section (1) and sub-section (2)of section 92C of the Act, which leads to violation of the provision of sub-section(3) of section 92CA of the Act read with sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 92C are given below for ready reference: “Section 92C: Computation of arm’s length price

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gainfully refer to the following findings of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of RBS Equities (India) Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (28 taxmann.com 158), upholding the Revenue’s plea for use of arithmetical mean instead of weighted average mean. “As regards the claim of the assessee for adopting weighted average arithmetic mean of brokerage rate

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:- (i).Omitted by Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2017*. *Prior to omission, clause (i) of section 92BA, as originally enacted, read as under: “(i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:- (i).Omitted by Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2017*. *Prior to omission, clause (i) of section 92BA, as originally enacted, read as under: “(i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made

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

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]

gain, and viii. Other incomes not pertaining to the operations Similarly, the following expenses which are non-operating and provisions are excluded from operating expenses: i. Provisions other than provisions for bad debts ii. Loss on sale of assets/investments iii. Loss on revaluation of assets iv. Foreign exchange loss v. Other expenses not pertaining to the operations. Similarly, extra ordinary

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]

gain, and viii. Other incomes not pertaining to the operations Similarly, the following expenses which are non-operating and provisions are excluded from operating expenses: i. Provisions other than provisions for bad debts ii. Loss on sale of assets/investments iii. Loss on revaluation of assets iv. Foreign exchange loss v. Other expenses not pertaining to the operations. Similarly, extra ordinary

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. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), 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

section 92C(3) of the Act have not been satisfied. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/AO, erred in not demonstrating that the motive of the Appellant was to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, which