DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustment is possible. However in view of the amendment as set out above and insertion of the Explanation to Section 928, the Legislature has explicitly clarified that issuance of corporate guarantee falls within the meaning of 'International transaction'. Therefore respectfully following the 6 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Mcleod Russel India Limited decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

73 (seventy three) days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order is dated 24/03/2021, which falls within the period of pandemic of Covid-19. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by assessee explaining the reasons for delay, owing to Pandemic of Covid-19 during that time. It is noted that the period

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

73,945/- by making a suo moto adjustment of Rs.2,11,97,154/-. Further, it is not in dispute that provisions of section 92 of the Act should be applicable in respect of transactions of rendering services of software development by the assessee to its AEs. The summary of international transactions reported in Transfer Pricing

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

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 92C of the Act. In the circumstances therefore apart from the fact that the power tariff should be shown to be fair value, it must also be demonstrated that the price adopted for determination of profits of the eligible undertaking, the assessee had adopted power tariff which could be said to be arrived at on arm's length principle

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.

73,109/-) is treated as Transfer Pricing Adjustment”. 9 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Linde India Limited (formerly BOC India Limited) The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the recommendation of ld. TPO and the same is concurred by the District Resolution Panel. 9. While impugning the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed

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 Officer (“the TPO”) with the approval of the Competent Authority. A detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee and its response was incorporated in the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) issued to the assessee. The assessee filed a petition before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“the DRP”), and the DRP issued directions to the Assessing Officer

ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAGREEKA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 427/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6(2), Kolkata Vs 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nagreeka Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 6Th Floor, Jain Chamber Vs Tax, Circle-6(2), Kolkata 18, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacn8691D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/06/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross-Objection Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2021. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 965 Days In Filing The Cross-Objection By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A 2

73 and held the alleged loss as speculation loss. 7.1.1. So far as the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act, which the ld. CIT(A) has referred to, that just defines the speculative transactions and for the sake of reference, Section 43(5) of the Act reads as follows:- “(5)"speculative transaction" means a transaction in which

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

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Transfer Pricing Officer's order. Its case is that a corporate guarantee amounts to an international transaction as per section 92B Explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.02. We find no merit in Revenue's instant grievance since various judicial precedents (2016) 157 ITD 132(Ahd), Tega Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 1912/Kol/2012 dated 21.09.16) & Bharti Airtel

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

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

73. It bears repetition that the subject matter of the attempted price adjustment is not the transaction involving the Indian entity and the agencies to whom it is making payments for the AMP expenses. The Revenue is not joining issue, the Court was told, that the Indian entity would be entitled to claim such expenses as revenue expense in terms

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 &

73. It bears repetition that the subject matter of the attempted price adjustment is not the transaction involving the Indian entity and the agencies to whom it is making payments for the AMP expenses. The Revenue is not joining issue, the Court was told, that the Indian entity would be entitled to claim such expenses as revenue expense in terms

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 &

73. It bears repetition that the subject matter of the attempted price adjustment is not the transaction involving the Indian entity and the agencies to whom it is making payments for the AMP expenses. The Revenue is not joining issue, the Court was told, that the Indian entity would be entitled to claim such expenses as revenue expense in terms

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 &

73. It bears repetition that the subject matter of the attempted price adjustment is not the transaction involving the Indian entity and the agencies to whom it is making payments for the AMP expenses. The Revenue is not joining issue, the Court was told, that the Indian entity would be entitled to claim such expenses as revenue expense in terms

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

transfer, Assessing Officer may either accept valuation of property on basis of report of approved valuer filed by assessee or he may refer question of valuation of capital asset to DVO in ac- cordance with section 55A. Further, in S Muthuraja vs CIT (2013) 37 Таx- mann.com 35a (Mad HC), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that where