JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. AA INFRAPROPERTIES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, for determination

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer and intellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt Benckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such products and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses in respect of same amounting to Rs. 3,02,43,43,377/- .Such expenses were related to the promotion of the brand owned

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 and ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 intellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt Benckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such products and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses in respect of same amounting

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 and ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 intellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt Benckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such products and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses in respect of same amounting

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 and ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22 intellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt Benckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such products and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses in respect of same amounting

M/S SOFTEL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T,CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Softel Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 224, Ajc Bose Road, 9Th Income Tax, Circle-7(2), Vs. Floor, Suite 912, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700017. (Pan: Aaics7132A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA of the Act to determine ALP with respect to SDT u/s. 92BA(1) of the Act. 4.1. The adjustments made by the Ld. AO (TPO) while completing the assessment for the SDTs is tabulated as under: 2 Softel Overseas Pvt. ltd., AY 2015-16 3 Softel Overseas Pvt. Ltd. AY 2015-16 Name

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.1880,1881&1882/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................….................……...…..…Appellant Vs. M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd.........................................…..…..Respondent 2, Rainey Park, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaace5778N] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 22.06.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 – The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

price adjustment of Rs. 1,49,23,786/- made by the AO TPO on account of Interest Income on Loan forwarded to AEs. 2 That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.1880,1881&1882/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................….................……...…..…Appellant Vs. M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd.........................................…..…..Respondent 2, Rainey Park, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaace5778N] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 22.06.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 – The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

price adjustment of Rs. 1,49,23,786/- made by the AO TPO on account of Interest Income on Loan forwarded to AEs. 2 That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.1880,1881&1882/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.........................….................……...…..…Appellant Vs. M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd.........................................…..…..Respondent 2, Rainey Park, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaace5778N] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 22.06.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.1880/Kol/2018 – The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

price adjustment of Rs. 1,49,23,786/- made by the AO TPO on account of Interest Income on Loan forwarded to AEs. 2 That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not determining the arm's length rate of interest in accordance with Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

transfer pricing adjustment on account of royalty payment has been deleted. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,70,19,072/-. Hence, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. The issue raised in ground no. 6 is against the disallowance of leave encashment

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

transfer and\n\nITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 &\nITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019&\nITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024\nReckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd.,\nAYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22\nintellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt\nBenckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such\nproducts and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses

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

transfer and\n10\nITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 &\nITA Nos. 2631/Kol/2019&\nITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024\nReckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd.,\nAYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, 2020-21 & 2021-22\nintellectual property right for provision of sale, distribution and marketing of Reckitt\nBenckiser products. It was manufacturing and distributing various brands of such\nproducts and had incurred substantial marketing and promotion expenses

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)

Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 covering transactions falling under Sec. 40A(2)(b) has been omitted vide Finance Act, 2017 with the effect that the said provisions never existed in the Statute and accordingly, the order passed by the TPO/AO TPO is void ab initio wrong, illegal and bad in law.” 4. Revenue has raised

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit report (Form 3CEB) and ITR. However, the case was not referred to TPO. /As per Para 3.2 of CBDT's Instruction No. 3 of 2016, the instant case had to be mandatorily referred to the TPO (the Transfer Pricing Officer) by the A.O after obtaining the approval of Principal CIT. However

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]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

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]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

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]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination

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]

40a(i) could be made. We note that the assessee has made remittances to 8 foreign parties which need to be examined at the level of the AO in the light of DTAAs and ascertain whether the assessee is covered under the Treaties. Needless to mention that if the AO can also find out about the examination