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]

68,89,467/-. 15. Now, first we need to examine that what type of services have been provided by the AE to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee has claimed that the assessee company in order to avail an effective network development and high productivity service standards the assessee is in continuous need of said services in the nature

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]

68,89,467/-. 15. Now, first we need to examine that what type of services have been provided by the AE to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee has claimed that the assessee company in order to avail an effective network development and high productivity service standards the assessee is in continuous need of said services in the nature

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]

methods prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not disallowed the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act but only adopted the ALP determined by the TPO in his order. We find that the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S 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\npurposes

methods prescribed under\nsubsections (1) and (2) of section 92C of the I.T. Act. The AO, in the instant case, had not\ndisallowed the expenditure under section 37 of the I.T. Act but only adopted the ALP\ndetermined by the TPO in his order. We find that the principle enunciated by the\nHon'ble High Court of Bombay

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

M/S ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIR-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2075/Kol/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.220 To 222/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 To 2013-14)

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. 10.On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 11. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 234C of the Act are very clear without any ambiguity that the same is chargeable only on the returned income. Hence, the Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. Adjustment to Arm’s Length Price – ITA No. 37/Kol/2012 – Asst Year 2007-08 The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign AE the same

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign AE the same

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign AE the same

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

Section 92B is quite wide and includes an arrangement, understanding or concerted action, which may be informal or in writing. It has been held by the special bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. (supra), that if an assessee has simultaneously or independently advertised the brand or logo of the foreign AE the same

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Itc Infotech India Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited Vs. Kolkata. (Pan: Aaaci7376Q) Virginia House, 37, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Bikash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

method are different therefore comparison of financial data is not possible, hence the foreign AEs should not be selected as a tested party. ITC Infotech India Ltd.,A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2015-16 8.6. On the other hand, ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully