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

Price adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee and grant consequential relief to the assessee. Hence Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal are partly allowed. 7. Ground no. 4 relates to non-grant of deduction of Rs. 52,91,000/- u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. AO did not allow the deduction holding as under

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

90,06,080/-. 3.3 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tri- bunal. During the course of the appeal, detailed arguments were made

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

90,06,080/-. 3.3 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tri- bunal. During the course of the appeal, detailed arguments were made

BENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Bengalshrachi Acit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata Housingdevelopment Aaykar Bhawan V/S. Ltd. P-7 Chowringhee Square, 686 Shrachi Tower, Kolkata-700 069. Anandapur,E.M Bypass, Kolkata-700 107. Pan: Aabcb2808F अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

90[including,— (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

2 Cliantha Research Ltd. TPO 21.05% 3 Raptim Research TPO 36.30% 4 Aragen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. TPO 17.21% 5 TCG Lifesciences Ltd. TPO 30.40% 6 Fermish Clinical Technologies Pvt. Ltd. TPO 3.82% M/s Philips India Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 7 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. TPO -25.77% 35th percentile 17.21% Median 20.40% 65th percentile 21.05% 019. After considering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)( d) al so provides that the comparability has to be Judged with respect to various factors including the market conditions, geographical conditions, cost of labour and capital in the market. Accounts receivable/payable effect the cost of working capital. A company which has a substantial amount blocked with the debtors for a long period cannot be fully comparable

PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

90 taxman 357, were submitted wherein the upward adjustment were directed to be deleted. However, DRP requested the Ld. AO to provide an updated status of the order of ITAT for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 1141/Kol/2016 and for AY 2011-12 in ITA No. 863/Kol/2016 to which it was submitted that department has filed appeals before

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

90 days has been granted for providing the limitation from 01.03.2022. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. General ground 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, (hereinafter referred

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.

90,28,344 = 2,33,66,246) to total revenue 2,33,66,246 x 100 9,54,15,06,000 0.244% of the difference is 24,73,109/- the adjustment The total adjustment for purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods of Rs.5,23,17,724/- = (4,98,44,615/- + 24,73,109/-) is treated as Transfer

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

transferred to the General Reserve, which can be distributed to shareholders, however, losses or depreciation cannot be taken from this reserve, it makes sure that a company's financial records show the real value of its assets, giving a clearer view of its finances. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a reserve set apart towards depreciation

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are allowed.\nGround Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in not\nappreciating the fact that the expenses of ₹55,71,982/- incurred by the\nassessee to settle the disputes in connection with his sold land with\nthird parties before its sale for paving way for easy transfer

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

2) of section 92B of the Act • Incurrence of AMP expenses is a unilateral act, not a bilateral arrangement • Incurrence of AMP expenses is also not covered under amendment made by Finance Act 2012 under section 92B of the Act • Incurrence of AMP expenses is also not covered under newly inserted section 92BA of the Act • RBIL is engaged

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 DIC India Limited (5) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO as well the Hon’ble DRP did not objectively set out the filters which were applied, functional analysis conducted and the search strategy adopted for identifying the ‘new’ comparables, apart from the comparable companies

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,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 u/s 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