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:

depreciation of the goodwill in the preceding years. Thus, finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and Ground No. 4(a) to 4(g) raised by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed. 21. Apropos Ground No. 5 for AY 2018-19 relating to disallowance of warranty, during the course of hearing

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

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]

depreciation to the tune of Rs.15,392/-. (4).Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to addition of Rs.6,43,440/- on account of unexplained investment deleted by the ld. CIT(A) admitting additional evidence. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. For the sake

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]

depreciation to the tune of Rs.15,392/-. (4).Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.1371/Kol/2017 relates to addition of Rs.6,43,440/- on account of unexplained investment deleted by the ld. CIT(A) admitting additional evidence. 4. We shall first take-up additions challenged on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. For the sake

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

92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

3 Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean The TPO, DCIT and the DRP erred in law in not granting the benefit of +/- 5 per cent variance as per proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. 4 Determination of arm's length price 4.1 The DRP and the DCIT erred in reaching a conclusion that a transfer pricing adjustment

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

3 Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean The TPO, DCIT and the DRP erred in law in not granting the benefit of +/- 5 per cent variance as per proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act. 4 Determination of arm's length price 4.1 The DRP and the DCIT erred in reaching a conclusion that a transfer pricing adjustment

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

92C (3) of the Act or the condition of recording an objective satisfaction as required under section 92CA (1) have been satisfied. 2. Error in upholding the adjustment with respect to payment of Cylinder Rental Charges 2.1 For that the authorities below failed to consider and appreciate that in the instant case, the transfer pricing adjustment proposed

M/S. CERATIZIT INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 928/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. -Vs- M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 995/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation cost to total costs of the companies selected by the ld TPO (i.e 3.22%) vis a vis the assesses (i.e. 10.21%) was very high and accordingly cash profit / net sales should be used. The ld CITA accepted the cash profit on sales as the correct PLI for benchmarking the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing segment. 5.5.2. The assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CERATIZIT INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 928/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. -Vs- M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 995/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation cost to total costs of the companies selected by the ld TPO (i.e 3.22%) vis a vis the assesses (i.e. 10.21%) was very high and accordingly cash profit / net sales should be used. The ld CITA accepted the cash profit on sales as the correct PLI for benchmarking the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing segment. 5.5.2. The assessee

M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

92C(3) of the Act have not been satisfied. 5. Without Prejudice To Above, approach adopted by the Hon'ble DRP and Ld. TPO/AO is not correct 5.1 The Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/ AO erred on facts and in law by arbitrarily rejecting the valuation undertaken by an independent third party valuer and re-determining the share

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

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

3. As you have not furnished any Form 3CEB for AY 2007-08, why the arm's length price of the international transactions should not be computed by adopting the most appropriate method and by selecting comparables/ appropriate profit level indicator of comparables, which are carrying out similar activities/ functions We submit that section 92(1) of the Act provides

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

3. As you have not furnished any Form 3CEB for AY 2007-08, why the arm's length price of the international transactions should not be computed by adopting the most appropriate method and by selecting comparables/ appropriate profit level indicator of comparables, which are carrying out similar activities/ functions We submit that section 92(1) of the Act provides

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

section 92C(3) of the Act; 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services (Currently known as Bothra Shipping services Pvt. Ltd.) ii. rejecting use of multiple year data; iii. using the data available at the time of assessment for undertaking comparability analysis; iv. not applying the filter on net fixed assets

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

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

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 2,67,54,530 being excess depreciation to the tune of 15% claimed by the Company

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

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

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 2,67,54,530 being excess depreciation to the tune of 15% claimed by the Company