M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order section 274 read with section 271(1)(C) of the Act along with the draft assessment order dated 27 November 2015, which renders

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act, where in, apart from the other upward adjustments, Rs 41,24,798 was adjusted in respect of Interest free loan and Corporate Guarantee advanced by the assessee to its AEs and also mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act is initiated for the international transaction 3 ITA Nos.406-410/Kol/2016 Electrosteel Castings

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act, where in, apart from the other upward adjustments, Rs 41,24,798 was adjusted in respect of Interest free loan and Corporate Guarantee advanced by the assessee to its AEs and also mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act is initiated for the international transaction 3 ITA Nos.406-410/Kol/2016 Electrosteel Castings

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act, where in, apart from the other upward adjustments, Rs 41,24,798 was adjusted in respect of Interest free loan and Corporate Guarantee advanced by the assessee to its AEs and also mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act is initiated for the international transaction 3 ITA Nos.406-410/Kol/2016 Electrosteel Castings

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act, where in, apart from the other upward adjustments, Rs 41,24,798 was adjusted in respect of Interest free loan and Corporate Guarantee advanced by the assessee to its AEs and also mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act is initiated for the international transaction 3 ITA Nos.406-410/Kol/2016 Electrosteel Castings

DCIT, CC-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELECTROSTEEEL CASTINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

144C of the Act, where in, apart from the other upward adjustments, Rs 41,24,798 was adjusted in respect of Interest free loan and Corporate Guarantee advanced by the assessee to its AEs and also mentioned that penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)( c) of the Act is initiated for the international transaction 3 ITA Nos.406-410/Kol/2016 Electrosteel Castings

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

u/s 92CA(4) of the Act and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to deal with the invalid draft assessment order. 3.8 In view of our decision at Para 3.7 above, there is no need of DRP directions on Ground of objections between No. 2 to 5.” 3. A perusal of the above DRP order would reveal that DRP has categorically

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 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

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 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

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 &

u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 for the AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. Since grounds are common, facts are identical in all the appeals, hence, these appeals have been heard

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]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price

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]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm’s length price

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

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

BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CENTAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal. 3. Though the assessee has raised a number of grounds before us, it had contested only the issue of determination

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)

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 and based

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR- 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

144C(5) of the Act dated 8.3.2017 pursuant to the 154 petition of the assessee and arrived at the revised PLI of comparables after taking into account working capital adjustments as under:- Sl.No. Comparable companies PLI as per Corrected Revised PLI order of the PLI post on TPO dt. directions incorporation 31.12.2015(%) issued by the of working Dispute capital Resolution

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

144C(5) of the Act dated 8.3.2017 pursuant to the 154 petition of the assessee and arrived at the revised PLI of comparables after taking into account working capital adjustments as under:- Sl.No. Comparable companies PLI as per Corrected Revised PLI order of the PLI post on TPO dt. directions incorporation 31.12.2015(%) issued by the of working Dispute capital Resolution

SAAB TECHNOLOGIES B.V.(FORMERLY KNOWN S ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 153/KOL/2022 is allowed

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

u/s 288B 37,64,480 The order is made as above in terms of provisions of section 144C (I) of the Act. The assessee is entitled to tile its acceptance of the order in terms of clause (a) or file its objections in terms of clause (b) of section I44C (2). The final assessment order is to be passed thereafter