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

disallowance and the order dated June 30, 2016 was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated July 28, 2016. 2.9 For the assessment year 2013-14, the Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating

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

disallowance and the order dated June 30, 2016 was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated July 28, 2016. 2.9 For the assessment year 2013-14, the Transfer Pricing Officer by his order dated October 28, 2016 again regarded the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and proposed an adjustment at the rate of 200 bps aggregating

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]

2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under

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]

2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under

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

disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to\nrestrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend\nincome to the assessee company during the year.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in directing the AO to restrict the addition in terms of clause

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

2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent of ₹40,89,253/-, being 90% of the actual disallowance\nmade by the Ld. AO of ₹45,43,615/- under repairs and maintenance\nwithout there being any justification of as to why such disallowance\nshould be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowances.” 3. The present appeal arises from the consolidated order by the ITAT, Kolkata vide order dated 27.06.2017 in ITA No. 505/Kol/2015 (department appeal) arising from DRP, Kolkata order dated 31.12.2014 and in ITA No. 2408/Kol/2016 (assessee appeal) arising from DRP, Delhi order dated 31.08.2016. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal relate to the following issues

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Assessee under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,88,57,264 on the contention

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]

2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under

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

disallowed since as per Explanation 3 to provision of sec- tion 40(a)(ii) inserted by Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1-4-2005, surcharge or cess forms a part of 'tax'. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chambal Fertilis- ers & Chemicals Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held

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

disallowed since as per Explanation 3 to provision of sec- tion 40(a)(ii) inserted by Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1-4-2005, surcharge or cess forms a part of 'tax'. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chambal Fertilis- ers & Chemicals Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowance as per the sec. 14A keeping the view of the instruction as well as the amendments and its applicability. 4 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Graphite India Limited 4.2. In respect of point stated in Para 2 (b), the contention of the A/R of the assessee is not correct. As per the submission of the assessee, it is stated

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

2), as increased by – (f) the amount or amount of expenditure relatable to income to which [section 10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (3*) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply; or]” 32. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in this respect, has submitted that the provisions of section 115JB are complete code in itself and therefore

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S 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\npurposes

section 92C of the Act\nread with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and\napplied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the\nassessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the\nintra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment can at all be made. Both Section 92CA, which provides for making a reference to the TPO for computation of the ALP and the manner of the determination

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment can at all be made. Both Section 92CA, which provides for making a reference to the TPO for computation of the ALP and the manner of the determination