M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for hearing on merits. 3. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No. 625/Kol/2016

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

92C of the Act. The ld. AR has rightly pointed out that AO neither pointed out the specified domestic transactions reported u/s 92BA of the Act, which according to him were not at arm’ length nor his manner of estimating the profits was in 17 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 terms

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]

condone the delay of two (2) days to filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, the revenue placed that both the appeals are in the same nature and have a common factual background. Accordingly, we have taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 490/Kol/2019is taken as lead case. 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds

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]

condone the delay of two (2) days to filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, the revenue placed that both the appeals are in the same nature and have a common factual background. Accordingly, we have taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 490/Kol/2019is taken as lead case. 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section. In the absence of any default in complying with the conditions as specified in provisions of 92C(3), rejection of appellant's C.O. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2021 AY: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Vesuvius India Ltd. benchmarking [by applying CPM read with TNMM] is not permissible under the law. For that assessee relied on the following CBDT circulars and precedents

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section. In the absence of any default in complying with the conditions as specified in provisions of 92C(3), rejection of appellant's C.O. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2021 AY: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Vesuvius India Ltd. benchmarking [by applying CPM read with TNMM] is not permissible under the law. For that assessee relied on the following CBDT circulars and precedents

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NETGURU LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1799/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S Netguru Ltd.

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. M/s Netguru Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue relates to action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the segment reporting prepared by the assessee company without having regard to the nature of business. The Revenue alleged in the aforesaid ground of appeal

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

condoned the delay. The one more factor, which was available before the Tribunal was that impugned order was open for debate and it is just a Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The rights in the hands of the appellant have not been crystallized. Therefore, the Tribunal made an elaborate discussion and held that such an order be termed

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

section 40A(2)(a)\nof the Act states that no disallowance on account of any expenditure being\nexcessive shall be made in respect of specified domestic transaction referred to\nin section 92A of the Act, if such transaction is at arm's length price as defined\nin clause (li) of Section 92F of the Act. Furthermore, such disallowance

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\ngrounds of appeal:\nI. ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019; AY 2012-13:\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the sum of Rs.77,70,880/- incurred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA TEA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 92C(2) of the Act. 5.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee is a widely held domestic company engaged in the business of inter alia blending and packaging tea for sale in the domestic and export markets and in manufacturing and exporting instant tea. The assessee undertook

TATA TEA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 92C(2) of the Act. 5.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee is a widely held domestic company engaged in the business of inter alia blending and packaging tea for sale in the domestic and export markets and in manufacturing and exporting instant tea. The assessee undertook

WITZENMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIR. -2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate upon the matter. 5. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that without prejudice to other grounds, the assessee is pressing ground nos. 2 and 3 relating to financial adjustments undertaken to eliminate material I.T.A. No. 222/Kol/2021 Witzenmann India Pvt. Ltd., AY 2009-10 5 differences in respect of capacity utilization adjustment