GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

144C of the Act, dated 30 December 2009, came to the conclusion that the Assessee had a PE in India within the meaning of Article 5 (1) as well as Article 5 (2) of the India-UK DTAA and that the consultancy services to be rendered are effectively connected with the PE in India and also that the whole

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

144C of the Act, dated 30 December 2009, came to the conclusion that the Assessee had a PE in India within the meaning of Article 5 (1) as well as Article 5 (2) of the India-UK DTAA and that the consultancy services to be rendered are effectively connected with the PE in India and also that the whole

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

M/S DATA CORE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11 is allowed, appeal of the revenue for Asst Year 2011-12 is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 387/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Data Core (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcd 1188 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(5) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Panel and consequently the Ld. AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee, with respect to international transaction pertaining to rendering of services, in accordance with provisions of the Act read

ITO, WD-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DATA CORE INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11 is allowed, appeal of the revenue for Asst Year 2011-12 is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee for the Asst

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 387/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Data Core (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcd 1188 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(5) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Panel and consequently the Ld. AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee, with respect to international transaction pertaining to rendering of services, in accordance with provisions of the Act read

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

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

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

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

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 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

M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

property. The Company estimated a budget cost of Rs.1,828 crores. It also availed loan of Rs. 470 crores from Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd so as to part finance the construction. The remaining cost of construction was funded by way of equity/internal accruals. In April 2012, out of the total area of 6.57 lakh sq. ft., the Assessee sold

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

144C(3) read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 06.01.2011 the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') made several enhancements to the returned income for which the appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Kolkata (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)']. The ld. CIT(A) vide

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