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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata M/S. Manaksia Limited 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Manaksia Limited Acit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 8/1, Lalbazar Street Vs Kolkata – 700 001 Pan : Aaach6882J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocae & Ms. Lata Goyal, Aca Revenue By : Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, Cit, D/R

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though it is not a notice

M/S BUCYRUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said TPO did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm’s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. L & T FINANCE LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of L & T Finance Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Kolkata Sector V, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aacca1963B) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 10/Kol/2023 In Ita No.1781/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 L & T Finance Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 7Th Floor, A Wing, Block Bp, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Sector V, Kolkata-700091. Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. In the present case, the assessee has filed the cross-objection well in advance of the actual listing of the appeal on the board. Further, the impugned order on 5 ITA No.1781/Kol/2019 & CO No. 10/Kol/2023

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Price (CUP) method for its above benchmark. The CIT DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned adjustment is well within the tolerable margin of +/.5% relevant to the impugned assessment year. The assessee has further proved the average US Dollar LIBOR (US) during the relevant financial year to be 1.13% only. The question as to whether foreign

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Price (CUP) method for its above benchmark. The CIT DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned adjustment is well within the tolerable margin of +/.5% relevant to the impugned assessment year. The assessee has further proved the average US Dollar LIBOR (US) during the relevant financial year to be 1.13% only. The question as to whether foreign

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Price (CUP) method for its above benchmark. The CIT DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned adjustment is well within the tolerable margin of +/.5% relevant to the impugned assessment year. The assessee has further proved the average US Dollar LIBOR (US) during the relevant financial year to be 1.13% only. The question as to whether foreign

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1068/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, and so can be used for the arm's length price adjustments. 15. The assessee in its submission dated 02.06.2010 to the Panel also stated it had submitted before the TPO requesting to make adjustments to the comparable companies' margins on account of the various' differences. These adjustments are on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. DHUNSERI VENTURES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

section 80IA (8) the electricity transferred from the power plant to the PET regimes manufacturing unit was valued by the assessee with reference to the amount charged by the concerned State Electricity Board in this appeal raised opined the assessee. The Ld. AR further submits that the assessee worked out the transfer price of power of both CPPs aggregating

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/144C on 01/03/2013, computing the total income at Rs.412,94,85,880/-. Subsequently the Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act, on 13/11/2015 proposing revision of the order on the ground that there were certain errors which caused prejudice to the interest

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

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

253 ITR 749 is well placed and supports the case of the assessee. We also find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR that if at all there is any personal element involved in the aforesaid expenditure, the same have to be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the directors and it is only

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

253 ITR 749 is well placed and supports the case of the assessee. We also find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR that if at all there is any personal element involved in the aforesaid expenditure, the same have to be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the directors and it is only

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

pricing issue only. Thereafter,\napproval was received for grounds of appeal with respect to transfer\npricing issue on 21.05.2019. The Ld. DR requested the Bench that the\ndelay may be condoned in view of the aforesaid reasons. Considering\nthe application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein,\nwe are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

pricing issue only. Thereafter,\napproval was received for grounds of appeal with respect to transfer\npricing issue on 21.05.2019. The Ld. DR requested the Bench that the\ndelay may be condoned in view of the aforesaid reasons. Considering\nthe application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein,\nwe are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

pricing issue only. Thereafter,\napproval was received for grounds of appeal with respect to transfer\npricing issue on 21.05.2019. The Ld. DR requested the Bench that the\ndelay may be condoned in view of the aforesaid reasons. Considering\nthe application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein,\nwe are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

pricing issue only. Thereafter,\napproval was received for grounds of appeal with respect to transfer\npricing issue on 21.05.2019. The Ld. DR requested the Bench that the\ndelay may be condoned in view of the aforesaid reasons. Considering\nthe application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein,\nwe are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

transfer pricing adjustment and concluding that the transaction between assessee and its AE is at arm’s length. iv. That the appellant craves to add, alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” C.O. Nos. 02 & 03/Kol/2021 AY: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Vesuvius India Ltd. 3. The revenue’s sole substantive ground raised