M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 92CA for determination of the arm's length price (ALP). 72. The Transfer Pricing Officer proposed to benchmark the interest-free loan transaction by taking into account the cost of funds in the hands of the assessee (base rate of 8 per cent was adopted on the reasoning that this would be the cost of borrowing in India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 92CA for determination of the arm's length price (ALP). 72. The Transfer Pricing Officer proposed to benchmark the interest-free loan transaction by taking into account the cost of funds in the hands of the assessee (base rate of 8 per cent was adopted on the reasoning that this would be the cost of borrowing in India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

section 92CA for determination of the arm's length price (ALP). 72. The Transfer Pricing Officer proposed to benchmark the interest-free loan transaction by taking into account the cost of funds in the hands of the assessee (base rate of 8 per cent was adopted on the reasoning that this would be the cost of borrowing in India

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) 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)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) 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)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

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)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

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)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed

NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

transfer pricing adjustments in the absence of a reference under section 92CA after assumption of jurisdiction under section 147. 5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 9,40,36,160

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, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SCHENCK PROCESS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

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

section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the solitary common issue involved therein relates to the Transfer Pricing adjustment. 2. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of equipments used for Dynamic Weighing, Feeding and Controlling flow of sold materials. The return of income

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

section to provide that the claim for the bad debt will be allowed in the year in which such a bad debt has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. 6.4. In as much as the assessee in the annual accounts for FY 2008-09 has written off an amount of Rs.3

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

section to provide that the claim for the bad debt will be allowed in the year in which such a bad debt has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. 6.4. In as much as the assessee in the annual accounts for FY 2008-09 has written off an amount of Rs.3

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)

160/-. The revised return of income was filed on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs 53,14,323/-. Admittedly this revised return was filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. The ld AO while completing the assessment ought to have taken note of the same and computed the total income of the assessee. Hence

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)

160/-. The revised return of income was filed on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs 53,14,323/-. Admittedly this revised return was filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. The ld AO while completing the assessment ought to have taken note of the same and computed the total income of the assessee. Hence

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

160 TTJ 556]. 8 The ld. D.R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the employment agreement placed on record by the assessee and pointed out certain anomalies and shortcomings there. According to him, the said agreement was not duly signed by the concerned parties and identity of one person Mr. Frank Ruther is not proved. He submitted that

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

transfer pricing legislation. Learned counsel has not explained as to how these inputs are relevant in interpreting the scope of the statutory provision before us, nor do we see any relevance of this material in the present context and given the fact situation above. It is also important to bear in mind the uncontroverted findings of the Assessing Officer that