PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No.8 and 9 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “8. Entrance fees, subscription and cost of facilities paid to clubs The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 1,332,749 being Pyment made to clubs. 9. Provision for replacement guarantee

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

transfer pricing adjustment by holding as follows: “The appellant had furnished comparative statements which showed that the weighted average price at which AE sold raw materials to unrelated parties was comparable with the price at which the raw material was sold to the appellant. The Ld. TPO did not dispute the application of internal CUP in the given facts

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

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO /Ld. Panel /Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing)-1 ('Ld. TPO') erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,01,37,172 to the Appellant's international transactions. The Appellant therefore prays that the Ld. AO /Ld. Panel

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on the following grounds: a) The services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA fall into the category of stewardship activity; b) Services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA were general supervisory activities which assisted the AE to control the activities of the assessee; c) Payments made by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on the following grounds: a) The services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA fall into the category of stewardship activity; b) Services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA were general supervisory activities which assisted the AE to control the activities of the assessee; c) Payments made by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on the following grounds: a) The services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA fall into the category of stewardship activity; b) Services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA were general supervisory activities which assisted the AE to control the activities of the assessee; c) Payments made by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on the following grounds: a) The services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA fall into the category of stewardship activity; b) Services provided by the AE of the assessee under the SA were general supervisory activities which assisted the AE to control the activities of the assessee; c) Payments made by the assessee

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

172/- interalia rejecting the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s 54EC of the Act of Rs.50,00,000/- and deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, on the ground that the amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- was received by the assessee, just as compensation for vacating the tenancy and hence the 2 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

price fluctuations; or (iii) a contract entered into by a member of a forward market or a stock exchange in the course of any transaction in the nature of jobbing or arbitrage to guard against loss which may arise in the ordinary course of his business as such member. The following clause (d) inserted after clause (C) in the proviso

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

price. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The limited issue arises for our consideration to decide the basis points for determining the cost of interest on the international transaction in respect of interest

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

3,03,70,84,890/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

3,03,70,84,890/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

3,03,70,84,890/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

3,03,70,84,890/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

3,03,70,84,890/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on the issue relates to the deduction u/s 80IA, addition made on ICDS and partly allowed the disallowance u/s 80G and delay deposit of employees contribution and dismissed the appeal