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)

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 no. 5 of the subject notice

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

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

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Act. I.T.A. No 3412/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 4114/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & ITA-2722/MUM/2011 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Page 16 of 23 Revenue’s appeal “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the operating profit of the assessee

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Act. I.T.A. No 3412/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 4114/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & ITA-2722/MUM/2011 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Page 16 of 23 Revenue’s appeal “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the operating profit of the assessee

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

92C(3) of the Act; 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services (Currently known as Bothra Shipping services Pvt. Ltd.) ii. rejecting use of multiple year data; iii. using the data available at the time of assessment for undertaking comparability analysis; iv. not applying the filter on net fixed assets

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

u/s 14A Rs. 5,38,000/- (iii) 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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

M/S THER STRUCTURAL WATERPROOFING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-10(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.112/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chryso India Private Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Limited (Formerly Known As ‘The Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited’) Plot No.D-30/7, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee M.I.D.C, Turbhe, Navi Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Mumbai-400 705 (Maharashtra) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabct 0878 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant desires leave to add, to alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections, at any time before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 3. The brief

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 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

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 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

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 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order