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

2. Copy of Audited Accounts for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 3. Copy of Annual Return filed with ROC 4. Details of Fresh Share Capital introduced during the year along with the names, full postal addresses and PAN of all the 38 the share applicant companies. 5. Detailed Fund Flow Statement for the year. 6. Copy of Bank Statement

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

144C(13)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 29.11.2016 for assessment year 2012-13 and grounds raised by assessee read as under:- “1.0 Determination of arm's length price for Corporate Guarantee fees 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned

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

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

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act which was replied on 18.03.2019 in which it was pointed out that the information did not pertain to AY 2010-11 but to AY 11-12. It was also stated before the AO that AY 2011-12 was reopened and after necessary verification, the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3)/147

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

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

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of Analysis and Synthesis of Chemical Compounds and Data Processing. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.13,89,39,620/-. As noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

2 and 9 are not pressed at the time of hearing. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 20. Issue raised in ground no. 12 to 14 is against the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 5,11,16,904/-. 21. Facts in brief are that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee

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

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

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)

2,00,21,945 to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise - Tata Coffee Vietnam Company Limited

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