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

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature; (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other 99debt arising during the course

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.,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

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished by the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13, the assesseecompany has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Nature of services Amount (Rs.) Purchase of raw material 88,41,91,807/- Purchase of traded or finished goods

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished by the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13, the assesseecompany has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Nature of services Amount (Rs.) Purchase of raw material 88,41,91,807/- Purchase of traded or finished goods

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

144C (1) of the Act has not made any adverse comment under section 37 of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the documentary evidences of receipt of services submitted by the appellant to the ld TPO and subsequently the told AO as per his direction. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add/ or amend, alter

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

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

144C and read with the order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as 'TPO'), under section 92CA(3) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio, 1.2. That the Learned DRP erred in not holding that the order of TPO and the draft order of the AO (in so far it relates to transfer

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

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

144C and read with the order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as 'TPO'), under section 92CA(3) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio, 1.2. That the Learned DRP erred in not holding that the order of TPO and the draft order of the AO (in so far it relates to transfer

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)

section 144C(5) of the Act dated 15.10.2015 for the Asst Year 2011-12. 2. Though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before us with regard to the transfer pricing addition, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the determination of the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the instant case

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 4(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act dated 30.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said draft order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. DRP which dismissed by their order dated 27.02.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 8. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR Shri Akkal Dudhewala FCA, appearing on behalf of the assessee

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

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

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

house. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in treating the expenditure of Rs.55,07,700/- claimed towards Trademark and Copyright consultancy under the head "Professional Fees" as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure as treated by the AO in the assessment proceeding. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

OUTOTEC GMBH,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, IT - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

144C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Income from Supervisory Services 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ DRP erred in increasing the net profit rate to 27.5% on the gross revenue from supervisory services against the net profit rate of 15.10% applied

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OUTOTEC GMBH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. C. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Outotec Gmbh Vs. D.C.I.T., International C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Taxation-2(1), Kolkata 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot- Aayakar Bhawan Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. Poorva,110 Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Assessee) .. (Respondent/Department) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T., International Vs. Outotec Gmbh Taxation-2(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva,110 C/O Outotec India Private Ltd., Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 12Th Floor, South City Pinnacle, Plot-Xi, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 8228 K (Appellant/Department) .. (Respondent/Assessee) Department By : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr. Assessee By : Subhabrata Mukherjee, Ar & Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017

144C read with Section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Income from Supervisory Services 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ DRP erred in increasing the net profit rate to 27.5% on the gross revenue from supervisory services against the net profit rate of 15.10% applied

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

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