DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

transfer pricing proceedings when the facts of the case including the underlying arguments have not altered. 4. Non-grant of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Appellant under

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28.01.2015. After receipt of this order, ld. Assessing Officer has passed a draft assessment order on 05.03.2015. The assessee filed objections on the draft assessment order and those objections were decided by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide its order dated 21.10.2015. The ld. 4 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Linde

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer computed the Arm's Length Price of SBLC issued by the SBI at the rate of 1.62% which comes to ₹9,92,126/-. While, the Id. CIT (A) reduced the Arm's Length Price to 0.5% by observing and holding as under:-\n\"4.6 Furthermore, the assessee emphasized that the guarantee transaction was not specifically designed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Pricing Adjustment 24,79,701 I.T.A. No.: 2597/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. 7. The Ld. AR argued before us that corporate guarantee is not an international transaction. However, without prejudice he also came up with an alternate argument which is also mentioned at para 2.2.3 in ground no. 2 of the appeal that the same

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

section 92F. The TPO also examined as to what would have been the actual price of the loan if charged by a bank/lender from similar enter- prises having similar creditworthiness/credit ratings without any guar- antee behind it. The fact that the lender required a guarantee to be put in place may in and of itself demonstrate that value exists

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

section 92F. The TPO also examined as to what would have been the actual price of the loan if charged by a bank/lender from similar enter- prises having similar creditworthiness/credit ratings without any guar- antee behind it. The fact that the lender required a guarantee to be put in place may in and of itself demonstrate that value exists

DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

57 days from the date f receiving copy of the order, for which assessee has filed condonation petition, which is as follows- On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

57,200/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downwards transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO in response to the transfer price of eligible CPPs at Durgapur in West Bengal, Kochi in Kerala and Mundra in Gujarat eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

57,200/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downwards transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO in response to the transfer price of eligible CPPs at Durgapur in West Bengal, Kochi in Kerala and Mundra in Gujarat eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

57,200/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downwards transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO in response to the transfer price of eligible CPPs at Durgapur in West Bengal, Kochi in Kerala and Mundra in Gujarat eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

57,200/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downwards transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO in response to the transfer price of eligible CPPs at Durgapur in West Bengal, Kochi in Kerala and Mundra in Gujarat eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

57,200/- claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of downwards transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO in response to the transfer price of eligible CPPs at Durgapur in West Bengal, Kochi in Kerala and Mundra in Gujarat eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer, the total income of the assessee for the Assessment year 2014-15 is computed as under:- Profit and Gains from Rs.391,91,43,633/- Business or Profession Adjustment as per TPO-2, Rs.112,64,51,330 5 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited Kolkata’s order dated 31.10.2019 Business Income Rs.504,55,94,963/- Income from

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,40,38,728/-made in respect of Corporate Guarantees provided by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking