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

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

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

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

201(1)(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it has been come to the notice of the ACIT (TDS)-II, Bhubaneswar that the assessee company had made certain payments on account of Rent during the F.Y. 2006-07 to various parties amounting to Rs. 11,33,85,160/- but no tax was deducted

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

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

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

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

201/- without surcharge and cess”. The ld. Principal CIT accordingly issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 20.11.2018 pointing out the above errors and seeking explanation as to why the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act should not be revised by invoking the provisions of section 263. Thereafter another notice

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. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.”] “Section 194G. Any person who is responsible for paying, on or after

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]

section 144C(l3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,74,59,780/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ' AEs’). 3. On the facts

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]

section 144C(l3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Hon. Panel erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 30,74,59,780/- to the international transactions of the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ' AEs’). 3. On the facts

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

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer ‘TPO’ took up consequential proceedings. He issued section 92CA (2), notice dated 18/9/2013 interalia pointing out the arithmetic discrepancy in the impugned payment of Rs.1 5,64,201/- in Form 3CEB shown as Rs.16,24,110/- in Form 3CD relevant to the royalty agreements dated 27/6/2007 and 02/11/2008 as well as the corresponding price in question

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer ‘TPO’ took up consequential proceedings. He issued section 92CA (2), notice dated 18/9/2013 interalia pointing out the arithmetic discrepancy in the impugned payment of Rs.1 5,64,201/- in Form 3CEB shown as Rs.16,24,110/- in Form 3CD relevant to the royalty agreements dated 27/6/2007 and 02/11/2008 as well as the corresponding price in question

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

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

201(1) r/w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which are held to be applicable to the year under consideration being retrospective in effect. If the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is found to be not sustainable by the AO in the year under consideration. The question of allowing deduction for A.Y 2012-13 as directed

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