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

Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, 2010 (amended since 1995), lists the following as shareholder activities: costs of activities relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as parent company shareholder meetings, issuing shares in the parent company and supervisory board costs; costs relating to reporting requirements of the parent company, including the consolidation

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

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 Nos. 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

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 Nos. 2

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

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

2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 challenges the finding of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the assessee. For the purpose of adjudication, we are taking the facts for AY 2013-14. 9.1. The assessee has claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants at Satna

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

2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 challenges the finding of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the assessee. For the purpose of adjudication, we are taking the facts for AY 2013-14. 9.1. The assessee has claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants at Satna

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

2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 challenges the finding of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the assessee. For the purpose of adjudication, we are taking the facts for AY 2013-14. 9.1. The assessee has claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants at Satna

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

2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 challenges the finding of ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act claimed by the assessee. For the purpose of adjudication, we are taking the facts for AY 2013-14. 9.1. The assessee has claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants at Satna

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

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.\nGround Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not\nappreciating the fact that the expenses of ₹55,71,982/- incurred by the\nassessee to settle the disputes in connection with his sold land with\nthird parties before its sale for paving way for easy transfer

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

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

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

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