DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

transfer of the commodity or scrips : Provided that for the purposes of this section,-- (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

256 ITR 713 that the benefit of section 47 (iv) is not available on the transfer of shares by holding company to subsidiary of the subsidiary company. The relevant portion from the head note of the report is reproduced hereinafter:- "The Legislative has taken case to provide in section 47 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that certain transfers shall

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 :-

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

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]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

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]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

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]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

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]

price as on the date of grant of such stock option. During the year, the assessee has determined Rs. 314,23,65,720/- as employee compensation cost accruing for the year based on the vesting period of the ESOPs which was duly disclosed in the Annual Account for the said year. The assessee claims to be entitled to the deduction

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]

256/- Sale of ferrite for consumption 63,11,28,244/- The assessee filed objections before the DRP and DRP after hearing the assessee passed an order u/s 144C(5) of the Act directing the AO/TPO to take 12,54,93,154/- as arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed by the AO making

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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

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

256/-\nSale of ferrite for consumption\n63,11,28,244/-\nThe assessee filed objections before the DRP and DRP after hearing the assessee\npassed an order u/s 144C(5) of the Act directing the AO/TPO to take 12,54,93,154/-\nas arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed\nby the AO making

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

section 80IC, inasmuch\nas such gains or profits' are derived from the industrial undertaking and includible in, the gross total\nincome of the assessee and the question relatable to the profit on the sale of scrap is thus answered in\nfavour of the assessee\"\nWe are persuaded by the reasoning of the said Court and answer the question accordingly

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

1,519.14\n2,044.55\n1,493.27 6,165.02\n38.62\n42.17\n116.22\n32.82\n229.83\n1.146.68 1,561.31\n2,160.77\n1,526,09 6,394.85\nLess: Allocation of\nresidual cost as per\nassessment order\n76.16\n83.16\n229.19\n64.73\n453.24\nLess: Allocation of bad\ndebt not allocated to\neligible units\nRevised deduction\n1,070,52 1,478.15\n0.22\n0.24\n1,931.58\n0.67

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

Price is determined from the view point of two independent companies?” ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 by Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee