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]

92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act but only adopted the ALP determined by the TPO in his order. We find that the principle enunciated by the 21 I.T.A. Nos. 2646/Kol/2018 & 1998/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. TDK India Private Limited

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]

92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act but only adopted the ALP determined by the TPO in his order. We find that the principle enunciated by the 21 I.T.A. Nos. 2646/Kol/2018 & 1998/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. TDK India Private Limited

PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,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:

disallowance of warranty, during the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground No. 5 for AY 2018-19. Accordingly Ground No. 5 for AY 2018-19 is dismissed as not pressed. 22. The common Ground No. 5 for AY 2017-18 and Ground No. 6 for AY 2018-19, is against

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:

disallowance of warranty, during the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing Ground No. 5 for AY 2018-19. Accordingly Ground No. 5 for AY 2018-19 is dismissed as not pressed. 22. The common Ground No. 5 for AY 2017-18 and Ground No. 6 for AY 2018-19, is against

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]

92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act but only adopted the ALP determined by the TPO in his order. We find that the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable on the facts

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

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

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

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

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

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)

3) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules' 1962 (the Rules). 4) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law to also ignore

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

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,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

disallowing the entire management fee/brand royalty on the ground that no service was rendered/no benefit was received and treating its ALP at NIL. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the necessary evidence of receipt of services and the detailed clarification thereon regarding the nature of benefit received by the appellant-company in relation to its business

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

disallowing the entire management fee/brand royalty on the ground that no service was rendered/no benefit was received and treating its ALP at NIL. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the necessary evidence of receipt of services and the detailed clarification thereon regarding the nature of benefit received by the appellant-company in relation to its business

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

3 of the sec. 92C of the Act and this resulted in the understatement of income and hence, the order made in this regard is considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4.3. In respect of point stated in Para 2 (c), the A.O. failed to make enquiry and verification of the Capital work in progress

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

3) of the Act.\nWe find that the TPO did not make any adverse comments in his order upon the arm's\nlength analysis carried out by assessee under the TNMM as per 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

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

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 of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be applied in the garb of 'Cost Plus Method’ as done by the TPQ. 3(h) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AQ/ TPO have erred in not following the directions

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, 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 of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be applied in the garb of 'Cost Plus Method’ as done by the TPQ. 3(h) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AQ/ TPO have erred in not following the directions