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

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

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

2) wherein the TPO had inter alia examined the profitability of the Centply Unit. Upon verification of the inter-unit transactions conducted by the assessee, covered by Section 80IA(8) & (10) of the Act, the TPO did not find the profitability of the Unit to be excessive and accordingly no adjustment was proposed in the transfer pricing order passed

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The assessee is an Indian company which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electronic components in India and abroad. These electronic components are primarily used in electronics industry. The assessee entered into the following international transactions with its associated enterprises during the previous year relevant

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

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