ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

reopened the concluded assessment after expiry of four years and within six years. On these facts the question posed by the assessee before the Hon’ble Apex Court was, whether the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts during the course of original assessment which led to the finalisation of the assessment order and undisclosed income escaping

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reopened the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 on 14.03.2005 and in the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 vide order dated 31.03.2006, the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA was restricted by the Assessing Officer to Rs.3,51,52,890/-. In the said assessment, he also disallowed the claim

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Transfer Pricing Regulation under the CUP Method. In the instant case, AT&S AG earned income from the international transaction involving payment of distribution commission by the appellant to AT&S AG in return for distribution services received by the appellant from AT&S AG under the 'Distribution Agreement' during the relevant financial year. In view of the above

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer pricing documentation on the same facts and circumstances of the case, and no ALP adjustments were directed by the Ld TPO in respect of international transactions involving payments made by the assessee under the Cost Contribution Agreement (CCA) for receiving purchase services, order handling services and sales services for last three assessment years

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

transfer pricing adjustment whatsoever in this regard has been made. 13. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that assessee had granted loan to its AE namely, Emami International FZE of USD 45 million and charged interest @8% p.a. The ld. TPO while passing the order u/s 92CA

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12& 2012-13)

transfer pricing adjustment whatsoever in this regard has been made. 13. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that assessee had granted loan to its AE namely, Emami International FZE of USD 45 million and charged interest @8% p.a. The ld. TPO while passing the order u/s 92CA

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

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

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

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, all the Service Level Agreements (SLA) entered with its AE were filed to the TPO. Besides sample copies of the invoices received from the AE were also filed. It was also reiterated that the IT services provided by the AE were integral to the business of the assessee and were allocated based on the number

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

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

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, all the Service Level Agreements (SLA) entered with its AE were filed to the TPO. Besides sample copies of the invoices received from the AE were also filed. It was also reiterated that the IT services provided by the AE were integral to the business of the assessee and were allocated based on the number

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

transferred to our client during the relevant previous year from June 2006. The same machinery which we have purchased from SLML Sarda AOP, the erstwhile lessee, was used by them for the purpose of working the mines and excavation and depreciation has been allowed in their hands in all the earlier assessment years on the user of the said machines

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129; or (ii) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (iii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129; or (ii) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (iii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

transfer pricing documentation on the same facts and circumstances of the case, and no ALP adjustments were directed by the Ld TPO in respect of international transactions involving payments made by the assessee under the Cost Contribution Agreement (CCA) for receiving purchase services, order handling services and sales services for last three assessment years

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

transfer pricing documentation on the same facts and circumstances of the case, and no ALP adjustments were directed by the Ld TPO in respect of international transactions involving payments made by the assessee under the Cost Contribution Agreement (CCA) for receiving purchase services, order handling services and sales services for last three assessment years

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)

transfer pricing adjustment was called for in respect of the payment of Royalty by the assessee to its AEs. In light of the principle of legitimate expectations and natural justice it would be unfairly prejudicial to RBIL, if the Hon'ble Panel considers the royalty payment made for use of the IPRs inappropriate. The facts in current assessment proceedings

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)

transfer pricing adjustment was called for in respect of the payment of Royalty by the assessee to its AEs. In light of the principle of legitimate expectations and natural justice it would be unfairly prejudicial to RBIL, if the Hon'ble Panel considers the royalty payment made for use of the IPRs inappropriate. The facts in current assessment proceedings