M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

144C shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely :— (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining

EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), 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

68,848/- after making the following additions:- (i) T.P. Adjustment Rs.1,96,77,739/- (ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs. 3,00,000/- (iii) Rs. 1,61,124/- Disallowance u/s. 40A(9) The record of the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act was examined

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 43B of the Act without any basis, in the computation sheet forming an integral part of the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 6.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting claim of deduction

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

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

sections 144C (3) to 144C (13) and interest as applicable under the provisions of the Act.” 6. Ld. A/R in reply placed as below: - Based on judicial pronouncements from various Indian Courts, following are the key principles that are relevant for determination of Installation PE: Time period of 6 months must be tested for each independent site separately

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)

section 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

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)

section 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

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

68,889/-. He accordingly worked out the total Transfer Pricing Adjustment to be made in the assessee’s case at Rs.8,95,57,833/-. In the Draft Assessment Order dated 26.12.2016 addition to that extent was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made further

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

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

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

Section 144C(8) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following case-law:-  IBM India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit [2014] 46 taxmann.com 129 (Bangalore - Trib.) It was argued that the ld. DRP having come to a conclusion that the functional profile is not the same, it should have

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

NATWEST MARKETS PLC,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27.01.2023, wherein the ld. AO reiterated the finding given by him in the draft assessment order, save and except that he held that interest of ₹6,18,50,000/- could not be added to the assessee’s income u/s 68

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

144C(13), r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

144C(13), r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred