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

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

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

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

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

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

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

Section 80IA of the Act, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same price computed by the assessee not been rejected as it cannot supply power at that rate in open market being a manufacturer and not a distributor. Ld. AO referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer who carried out the proceedings and came to a conclusion

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

Transfer Pricing Officer's order. Its case is that a corporate guarantee amounts to an international transaction as per section 92B Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.02. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance since various judicial precedents (2016) 157 ITD 132(Ahd), Tega Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 1912/Kol/2012 dated 21.09.16) & Bharti Airtel

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, 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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground

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

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

145(2) r.w ICDS -II, Valuation of Inventory for being made on LIFO Basis, contrary to ICDS-II mandating, inter alia, Weighted Average Method, there had been an undervaluation of Closing Stock to the extent of Rs.11467010/-. In the Appeal filed against such addition, the Appellant had challenged the said addition by contending that: a) Vide the Gold Account

JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. AA INFRAPROPERTIES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, for determination of Arm's Length Interest in the aforesaid transactions. The TPO observed that the assessee had paid interest @ 11.5% to another party, namely M/s. Silver Cross Marketing Pvt. Ltd, and held the same

JCIT(OSD), CIR-II(1). , KOLKATA vs. M./S AA INFRAPROPERTIES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, for determination of Arm's Length Interest in the aforesaid transactions. The TPO observed that the assessee had paid interest @ 11.5% to another party, namely M/s. Silver Cross Marketing Pvt. Ltd, and held the same

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he\nalleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP\nto bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel,\nthis issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee's own\ncase for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this\nground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he\nalleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP\nto bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel,\nthis issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee's own\ncase for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this\nground

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.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,98,142/- made on account of the purchase of goods by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 4. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

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.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,98,142/- made on account of the purchase of goods by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 4. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section

D.CI.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S IMPEX FERRO TECH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

145(3) is erroneous since the AO has invoked the said provision while passing the assessment order. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- is erroneous since such decision is based on erroneous finding contrary to the facts available