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

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

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

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

9. We also note that in most of the cases, the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal have adopted arm’s length corporate guarantee fees between 0.2 % - 0.5%. We may gainfully refer, in this regard, to the following decisions of this Hon’ble Tribunal: i. DCIT v. Berger Paints India Limited (ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017) ii. Britannia Industries Limited

JCIT(OSD), CIR-II(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

9. We also note that in most of the cases, the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal have adopted arm’s length corporate guarantee fees between 0.2 % - 0.5%. We may gainfully refer, in this regard, to the following decisions of this Hon’ble Tribunal: i. DCIT v. Berger Paints India Limited (ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017) ii. Britannia Industries Limited

IMC LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 IMC Limited stage, before considering the multi-fold contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

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

9 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 8.1. Assessee was show caused by the Ld. AO/TPO for bench-marking of the AMP expenses. Assessee raised its objection on the show cause notice, summary of which is listed as under: “• AMP expenses incurred by RBIL does not constitute international transaction. • Non-satisfaction of requisites of being an international transaction

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 &

9(c) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 &

9(c) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 &

9(c) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA of the Act to determine ALP with respect to SDT u/s. 92BA(1) of the Act. 6.1. The adjustments made by the Ld. AO (TPO) while completing the assessment for the SDTs is tabulated as under: 7 ITA No.1781/Kol/2019 & CO No. 10/Kol/2023 L&T Finance Ltd. AY 2014-15 7. To corroborate the nature

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

9. Ld. D/R fairly agreed to the contention of the Counsel for the assessee. 10. After perusing the orders of the Hon'ble Coordinate Benches in the above said years, we note that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Benches wherein the issue of transfer pricing has been decided in favour of the assessee

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

9,279,769 on account of chargeback at cost, of\nexpenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of its AEs and treating the same\nas 'market support services'.\n8(b) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred\nin not appreciating that charging of mark-up of 9.23% is not required since

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

9,279,769 on account of chargeback at cost, of\nexpenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of its AEs and treating the same\nas 'market support services'.\n8(b) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred\nin not appreciating that charging of mark-up of 9.23% is not required since