AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance without appreciating that the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(1) of the Act did not make any adverse comment under section 37 (1) of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the details of the said transaction submitted by the appellant to the Ld. TPO and subsequently

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AT & S INDIA LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

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

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

3) of section 92C of the Act which would necessitate intervention of the AO/TPO for determination of arm's length price of an international transaction. Hence, the TPO's computation of the arm's length pace of the aforesaid international transaction at 'NIL ' value as aforesaid had no valid basis. In this connection, the appellant placed reliance on the decision

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

3) of section 92C of the Act which would necessitate intervention of the AO/TPO for determination of arm's length price of an international transaction. Hence, the TPO's computation of the arm's length pace of the aforesaid international transaction at 'NIL ' value as aforesaid had no valid basis. In this connection, the appellant placed reliance on the decision

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of section 92C, which would warrant your goodself to disregard the analysis undertaken by the assessee and undertake a fresh analysis.) 3.7.6. The assessee pointed out the error in computation of PLI by the ld TPO as under :- 2· Error in computation of PLI of the assessee (Refer Point No. 5 of the notice) Reference point

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

3 and 4.8 of the said deed dated August 24, 2009 were understood by the Appellant and by TGBIL in the manner recorded in a letter dated 23 March 2010, filed through an affidavit before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Hon’ble Tribunal”) dated June 13, 2022, exchanged between the Appellant and TGBIL. The Appellant also states that

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

3 and 4.8 of the said deed dated August 24, 2009 were understood by the Appellant and by TGBIL in the manner recorded in a letter dated 23 March 2010, filed through an affidavit before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Hon’ble Tribunal”) dated June 13, 2022, exchanged between the Appellant and TGBIL. The Appellant also states that

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

3,88,37,190 made to the income of the assessee, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. While rejecting the contentions of the assesse on merits, learned CIT(A), inter alia, observed as follows: 14. The appellant has relied on the Board’s Circular No.14 of 2001 that the new Section

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

disallowance of export of chemicals to associated enterprises valued Rs.39,78,196/-. . For this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 3(a) and 3(b): “3(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the TPO/ AO amounting to Rs.39

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

disallowance of export of chemicals to associated enterprises valued Rs.39,78,196/-. . For this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 3(a) and 3(b): “3(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the TPO/ AO amounting to Rs.39

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,71,75,123/- made by the A.O on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A r.w. Section 8D(2) (ii) and to restrict expenses for the investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee company

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

section (1) and sub-section (2)of section 92C of the Act, which leads to violation of the provision of sub-section(3) of section 92CA of the Act read with sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 92C are given below for ready reference: “Section 92C: Computation of arm’s length price

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. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), 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

Disallowance of interest Rs. 6,025/- expenses 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144C(5) of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “1. Orders bad in law and on facts 1.1. That the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 92C(2) of the Act. The TPO therefore made downward adjustment to the therefore made downward adjustment to the value of raw materials purchased from the related parties to the extent of Rs. 2, materials purchased from the related parties to the extent of Rs. 2, materials purchased from the related parties to the extent