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)

114 M/s. Emami Limited ITA Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Total 3,09,402 Arm’s length price of INR value @ (Rs.45/USD x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90,28,352/- Upward adjustment Rs.48,94,738/- 8. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO/Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter

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)

114 M/s. Emami Limited ITA Nos.1065 & 1066/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Total 3,09,402 Arm’s length price of INR value @ (Rs.45/USD x Rs.1,39,23,090/- interest 3,09,402 ) Less: Interest offered Rs.90,28,352/- Upward adjustment Rs.48,94,738/- 8. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO/Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter

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

114-115 of the said Compendium] it was held that whether a charge should be imposed for provision of a guarantee was primarily a factual enquiry. On the facts of Prolifics’ case, it was held that there was an inherent risk in providing the corporate guarantee justifying a transfer pricing adjustment. 2.14 The question relating to corporate guarantee was considered

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

114-115 of the said Compendium] it was held that whether a charge should be imposed for provision of a guarantee was primarily a factual enquiry. On the facts of Prolifics’ case, it was held that there was an inherent risk in providing the corporate guarantee justifying a transfer pricing adjustment. 2.14 The question relating to corporate guarantee was considered

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. (c) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was not made by the A.O keeping in view the circular No. 5/2014 (F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA.II) dated 11-02-2014 as well as provisions laid down in the Act. (d) It is seen from clause 17 of TAR that the assesse did not take valuation of properly sold as per provisions

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, respectfully following the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

Transfer Pricing Regulations. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs A.Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and M.C.Mehta vs Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 (SC) for the proposition that Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") should be construed on its terms, without drawing any analogy

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for determining the arm's length price of the aforesaid international transaction at 'NIL' value. 6. The appellant's contention is that the Ld. TPO in his order determined the arm's length price of the international transaction under consideration at 'NIL' based on benefit test drawing reference to the US Transfer

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

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for determining the arm's length price of the aforesaid international transaction at 'NIL' value. 6. The appellant's contention is that the Ld. TPO in his order determined the arm's length price of the international transaction under consideration at 'NIL' based on benefit test drawing reference to the US Transfer

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE & FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing assessment proceedings from the said company wherein the said company had replied that it provides software development services. The ld TPO by placing reliance on the same held the said company to be a valid comparable with the assessee for computing the arm’s length margin. We also find from the profit and loss account of the said

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWS AS ANSHIN SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing assessment proceedings from the said company wherein the said company had replied that it provides software development services. The ld TPO by placing reliance on the same held the said company to be a valid comparable with the assessee for computing the arm’s length margin. We also find from the profit and loss account of the said

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

Transfer Pricing Provisions No other ground was argued or contested during the course of hearing of the case. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services (Currently known as Bothra Shipping services Pvt. Ltd.) 3.1. All the technical grounds have not been pressed. Hence these are dismissed as not pressed

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

section 45 (2A) have no applicability in the case of the assessee. Further, as per the provisions of sec 45 (2A) the transfer of shares held by the depository on behalf of the client will not be taxed in the hands of the depository but will be taxed in the hands of the beneficial owner of the said shares

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(3) for the AY 2013-14 was available before the AO at the time of framing of assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15. Moreover, it is noted that similar 18 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 estimated disallowance u/s 80IE which was made