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

ITA 2610/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 August 2025AY 2021-2022Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)17 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, where Tata Elxsi and Sasken Technologies were excluded. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Philips India Limited, appealed against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel concerning transfer pricing adjustments for software development services. The primary dispute involved the exclusion of two comparable companies, Tata Elxsi and Sasken Technologies, from the benchmarking analysis.

What were the issues?

Whether Tata Elxsi and Sasken Technologies are functionally comparable to the assessee for transfer pricing purposes, and if their exclusion leads to a valid transfer pricing adjustment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR
Hearing: 23.07.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the AP passed after directions by ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. DRP”] dated 13.09.2024 for the AY 2021-22. 2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is general in nature.

3.

The issue raised in ground no.2 is in respect of transfer priding adjustment of ₹54,41,41,000/- on account of provision of software development services. M/s Philips India Ltd.; A.Y. 2021-22

3.1.

The facts in brief are that the assessee has been producing/doing software development and software services to its Associated Enterprises. The assessee function as

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →