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(5) of the Act and the Directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble DRP’) dated February 18, 2022 for the said assessment year 2017-18 are contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and are liable to be set aside and/or quashed. Ground 2: That

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

144C(3) on the said points as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per Explanation 2(c) below section 263(1) of the Act and setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the said points, he directed the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee

A T AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NANJANGUD,MYSORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

depreciation as per the notice u/s 263 and as assessed by the ld. AO from A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14, which were to the tune of ₹65,36,55,033/- and ₹85,55,67,855/- respectively. The ld. AR referred to page no.106, which is a copy of the order passed u/s 254/ 143(3) read with section 144C

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore disposed of vide our ideal common adjudication. 2. Coming to Revenue’s three appeals ITA No.217

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore disposed of vide our ideal common adjudication. 2. Coming to Revenue’s three appeals ITA No.217

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore disposed of vide our ideal common adjudication. 2. Coming to Revenue’s three appeals ITA No.217

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 1 M/s. Linde India Limited 2012-13. The impugned order was emanated in pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi dated22.11.2016. 2. The assessee has taken the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. Order

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

144C(5) dated 11.06.2024 as aforesaid has rejected the objections of the assessee and upheld the addition made on this issue. The relevant part of the DRP's direction is as below” I.T.A. No.: 1875/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Tega Industries Limited. 8.1. Before us the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CENTAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

depreciation on Tata & JB Loaders at the rate of 30% as claimed in the return of income. 16. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in applying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

144C(13) the Act by: 2. For that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,91,03,939/- as against the total income of Rs. 40,62,622 computed by the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act. 3. For that the Authorities below erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE & FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

144C(13) the Act by: 2. For that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,91,03,939/- as against the total income of Rs. 40,62,622 computed by the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act. 3. For that the Authorities below erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

144C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was challenged before the ld. DRP by the assessee and the ld. DRP vide order dated 11.07.2018 partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to Rs.5,74,32,036/- in respect of transfer pricing adjustment. 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 DIC India Limited

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

section 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

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

section 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

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, 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

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

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment – Rs. 5,27,580/- The assessee claimed deduction towards provision