AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee during the year had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE for short) for supplying the PCB manufactured by it. The Assessing Officer after having the approval from the CIT made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Panel”) and consequently incorporated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) in the assessment

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Panel”) and consequently incorporated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) in the assessment

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

M/S. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

201,000 Annexure 3 AY 2006-07 541,000 Annexure 4 Total addition 1,392,00 Less: written back in AY 06-07 76,000 Annexure 4 Less: written back in AY 07-08 186,000 Balance 1,1,30,000 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 7 December 2010 submitted that the gratuity

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, the instant appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Panel”) and consequently incorporated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) in the assessment

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

201/- to its AE M/s Orica International PTE Limited (Singpore). The impugned assessment year appears to be the first year of the payment in question. The Assessing Officer made Section 92CA reference for determination of ‘ALP’ thereof. The Transfer Pricing

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE JCIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

201/- to its AE M/s Orica International PTE Limited (Singpore). The impugned assessment year appears to be the first year of the payment in question. The Assessing Officer made Section 92CA reference for determination of ‘ALP’ thereof. The Transfer Pricing

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

transferred to Distributor, The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc is with Distributor. Also, it would also demonstrate that the difference between price paid, to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence Assessee is not a ‘person responsible for paying any income’. In fact, a mere purchase

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

transferred to Distributor, The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc is with Distributor. Also, it would also demonstrate that the difference between price paid, to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence Assessee is not a ‘person responsible for paying any income’. In fact, a mere purchase

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

transferred to Distributor, The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc is with Distributor. Also, it would also demonstrate that the difference between price paid, to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence Assessee is not a ‘person responsible for paying any income’. In fact, a mere purchase

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

transferred to Distributor, The risk of stock remaining unsold, expired etc is with Distributor. Also, it would also demonstrate that the difference between price paid, to Assessee and selling price to Retailer is on his own account and not on account of Assessee and hence Assessee is not a ‘person responsible for paying any income’. In fact, a mere purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

201/- at the time of filing of return. In the course of assessment tile appellant had substantiated the basis adopted for offering the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. I also note that the methodology adopted by the appellant for disallowing administrative expenses u/s 14A was consistently followed and accepted in the appellant's regular assessments upto

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

201/- at the time of filing of return. In the course of assessment tile appellant had substantiated the basis adopted for offering the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. I also note that the methodology adopted by the appellant for disallowing administrative expenses u/s 14A was consistently followed and accepted in the appellant's regular assessments upto