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 &

144C(10) of the Act by not reducing expenses in connection with sales promotion. 3(i) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in not excluding the reversal of the advertisement expenses credited by the appellant under the head ‘Other Income

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 &

144C(10) of the Act by not reducing expenses in connection with sales promotion. 3(i) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in not excluding the reversal of the advertisement expenses credited by the appellant under the head ‘Other Income

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 &

144C(10) of the Act by not reducing expenses in connection with sales promotion. 3(i) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in not excluding the reversal of the advertisement expenses credited by the appellant under the head ‘Other Income

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

144C(10) of the Act by not reducing expenses in connection with sales promotion.\n3(i) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO/TPO/ DRP have erred in not excluding the reversal of the advertisement expenses credited by the appellant under the head ‘Other Income

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

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

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

144C(10)\nof the Act by not reducing expenses in connection with sales promotion.\n3(i) Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case, the AO/TPO/ DRP have erred in not excluding the\nreversal of the advertisement expenses credited by the appellant under the\nhead ‘Other Income

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]

144C(l3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,74,59,780/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ' AEs’). 3. On the facts of the case

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]

144C(l3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,74,59,780/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ' AEs’). 3. On the facts of the case

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

144C(5) of the Act, dated 20.12.2016 for AY 2012-13. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal are reproduced as under: 2 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 3 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 4 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 5 Reckitt Benckiser (India

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

144C(5) of the Act dated 22.09.2016, for AY 2012-13 2. Assessee made an application before the Tribunal to accept the revised grounds of appeal vide its application dated 04.12.2017. The 2 Normura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 revised grounds have been filed to make the original grounds precise. The same are admitted

STAR PAPER MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 424/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Star Paper Mills Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Duncan House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/06/2022, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Which Is Arising Out Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dt. 29/04/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao/Tpo In Complete Disregard Of The Binding Precedent In Assessee'S Own Case For 2

House Vs 31, N.S. Road Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAECS0759B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA Revenue by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal is directed

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various dates Rs.14,04,700/- more in a saving bank account 3. Deposit in Cash aggregating On various dates Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00/- or more, with a Banking company 4. Purchase of immovable property On various dates Rs.1

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property was ₹41,92,500/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'AO') noted that the transaction amount related to the person was ₹16,18,438/- whereas the stamp duty value was ₹41,92,500/- and thus, the difference amount of ₹25,74,062/- had escaped assessment. The assessment of the assessee was reopened

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

property\nbelongs to the Lessor and not to the assessee and the assessee cannot\nclaim depreciation also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed 10% of the overall expenses\non estimated basis and granted relief in respect of the rest of the amount\nas the Ld. AO has himself

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

property belongs to\nthe Lessor and not to the assessee. The assessee can not claim depreciation\nalso. Considering the factual position, we are of the view that order passed\nby the Id CIT (A) does not contain any infirmity. Therefore, we confirm the\norder of ld. CIT(A). and Ground No. 2 of the appeal is\ndismissed.\n8. Ground