ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pric- ing Officer ought to have served a notice on the assessee to make submissions in support of the computation of arms’ length price as contained in section 92CA(2). From the ma- terial placed on record, it is noted that in the impugned as- sessment u/s. 153A read with sec. 143

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the assessment order, considered the submission of the assessee, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the ITA No.: 2306/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Act and annual reports of the above-mentioned

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

143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned Assessing

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

143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [in short ld. “Pr. CIT”] dated 28.07.2016 & 15.06.2017, respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “Assessment Year 2012-2013: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Learned Assessing

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

143(2) of the Act. However, without going into the merits of the said issue, we find that the Assessing Officer had made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing

NEWAGE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 is confirmed. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.1 is dismissed.” 7. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order considering the relevant provisions of the Act. Similar issue arose before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT

ACID, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are\ndismissed

143(2) and notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and duly served\nupon the assessee. The AO vide several notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act had raised issues\nregarding the scheme of demerger and according to the AO, the demerger was not in\ncompliance with the provisions of Section 2(19AA

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

transfer of leasehold interest/rights, which is in consonance with the provisions of section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC); (ii) Dy. CIT v. Tejinder Singh (19 taxmann.com 4) (ITAT Kolkata) (iii) Atul G Puranik

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

transfer pricing issue related to international transaction in terms of s.92C(3) of the Act, and after receipt of the TPO’s order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to pass draft assessment order incorporating the order of the TPO in terms of s.92CA(4) of the Act. 3.6 In view of the provisions under

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]

143(2) on 26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) to the amalgamating company. 9 On 22 January 2016, the Transfer Pricing

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 25.05.2016 for AY 2012-13 and dated 31.03.2016 for AY 2013-14 by ld. JCIT / DCIT, Circle – 9(1), Kolkata. 2. The issues involved in both these appeals are identical except for variation in quantum. Hence, they were heard together and are being disposed

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 25.05.2016 for AY 2012-13 and dated 31.03.2016 for AY 2013-14 by ld. JCIT / DCIT, Circle – 9(1), Kolkata. 2. The issues involved in both these appeals are identical except for variation in quantum. Hence, they were heard together and are being disposed

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]

section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi (“DRP”). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal before Tribunal for AY 2014-15: “1. On the facts of the case and in law, the order

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]

section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred as “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi (“DRP”). 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal before Tribunal for AY 2014-15: “1. On the facts of the case and in law, the order

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Pricing)- Kolkata and not with officers in Surat. This fact has been admitted by the Department and hence, they transferred the file of the assessee from Surat to Kolkata and the same is mentioned in the assessment order on pages 35/36. This clarifies the issue that the Department itself has agreed that the Assessing Officers in Surat did not hold

MADHUR COAL MINING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2017 by making additions of ₹13,23,01,000/- on account of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act and ₹3,38,75,800/- on account of capital gains u/s 50D of the Act and assessed the total income at ₹16,61,52,180/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. The assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Order bad in law and on facts 1.1. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with Section 1448 of the Act and read with the order passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 1 M/s. Linde India Limited 2012-13. The impugned order was emanated in pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi dated22.11.2016. 2

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

143(2) of the Act, the appellant filed relevant details and/ or particulars as had been requisitioned by the Ld. Assessing Officer “the Ld. AO”) from time to time. 3.1 During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made a reference under section 92CA of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, TPO, Range 2, Kolkata