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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

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

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

transfer pricing order, we agree with the ld. DR that these segmented results were never verified by the TPO since he had out-rightly rejected the same. Accordingly we uphold the Ld. DR's alternative claim and set aside the audited segmented results to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verification and cross- check with

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and applied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the assessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the intra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

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 &

Section 92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

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 &

Section 92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

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 &

Section 92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 92C of the Act\nread with rule 10B of the Rules. Accordingly, we feel that TPO made proper enquiry and\napplied his mind to the details brought on record by assessee. He had agreed with the\nassessee that the international transactions covered by the TNMM analysis (including the\nintra-group service charge paid /payable to Nalco Pacific) adhered

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

Section\n92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness.\nWhat is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative\npolicy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness\nwhile at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.\n76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

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

Section\n92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness.\nWhat is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative\npolicy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness\nwhile at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.\n76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer. Moreover the Id AR has put up clarificatory details as well as reasoning for apparent discrepancy in disclosure. However what needs to be considered is that neither the said clarification was sought by the AO nor any enquiry was made by the AO to check the correctness of specific domestic transactions. The issue of reference

JCIT(OSD), CIR011(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

193 (Kolkata-Trib.), Century Enka Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 318 (Kolkata-Trib.) and Universal Cables Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 95 (Kolkata-Trib.). In all the above citations, it has been held that the assessee is entitled to remaining 50% of the depreciation in the subsequent year which was not claimed in the year of addition I.T.A

M/S TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, DELHI AND KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Tdk India Private Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata Wbidc Growth Centre, Kulia Aayakar Bhawan, P-7 Kanchrapara Road, Po Ns Chowringhee Square, Sanatorium,Kalyani, Nadia, Vs. 6Th Floor, Roomno.18, Kolkata-741251, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci6950Q Assessee By : Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2025

193 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even though the principle of res- judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, but where fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as the fact one way or the other and the parties have allowed the position to be sustained by not challenging

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

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

section 54F(1)\nwhich says that \"net consideration\", in relation to the transfer of a capital\nasset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure\nincurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.\nIn CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed and the CO is dismissed

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10;

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with respect to advisory services provided by M/s Global Footware Services, Singapore, which is an Associated Enterprise (AE) of the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that the TPO’s working for determining an Arm’s Length Price (ALP) resulted in “Nil” payment on the alleged ground that no benefit of services was actually received

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

193 Taxman 234 (SC) there can be obligation to deduct tax at source only when the remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Act. If the income has not accrued in India, there can be no TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Thereafter, ld. A/R argued at length following the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation