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

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

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

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” 4. Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the above decision of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, respectfully following the same

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

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

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

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

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

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

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