PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

TDS, in accordance with law. The ld. D/R has raised no objection to this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 for AY 2017-18 and Ground No. 8 for AY 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purposes. 25. The common Ground No. 8 for AY 2017-18 and Ground

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

92C(2) of the Act.” 38. We have heard the rival submissions. As in earlier A.Y.2007-08, the assessee seeks exclusion of three comparable companies out of the seven comparable companies ultimately chosen by the TPO in A.Y.2008-09. The three companies which are sought to be excluded by the assessee in this appeal before the Tribunal are Aftek Ltd , 3i Infotech

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

92C(2) of the Act.” 38. We have heard the rival submissions. As in earlier A.Y.2007-08, the assessee seeks exclusion of three comparable companies out of the seven comparable companies ultimately chosen by the TPO in A.Y.2008-09. The three companies which are sought to be excluded by the assessee in this appeal before the Tribunal are Aftek Ltd , 3i Infotech

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

TDS of Rs.57,79,428/-. vi) Levying of interest u/s. 234A of Rs.9,10,881/-. 3 Philips India Ltd. AY 2010-11 4. Brief facts are that assessee is a part of the Royal Philips organisation, headquartered in Netherlands. The ultimate parent company of the group is Koninklijke Philips NV. Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands is a diversified Health

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

92C of the Income­tax Act, 1961, read with sub­rule (1) of rule 10B of the Income­tax Rules, 1962. We have considered the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Diageo India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2013] 34 taxmann.com 284(Mumbai ­ Trib.), wherein it was held that the product similarity has to be seen

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 2,67,54,530 being excess depreciation to the tune of 15% claimed by the Company on moulds

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

92C(2) of the Act. 7. Depreciation on moulds ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 5 7.1. The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 2,67,54,530 being excess depreciation to the tune of 15% claimed by the Company on moulds

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 27 28 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd) A.Yr.2013-14 378 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LANDIS+GYR LIMITED, SOUTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05)

TDS, nature of service rendered and also quantification of service rendered. The AO was of the view that so far as allowability of expenses in form of commission is concerned, the main point to be satisfied is “Rendering of service”. The assessee although filed details of commission, but such details is not accompanied by any evidence towards rendering of service

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2600/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Philips India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 378 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book. He also referred to the exclusion of 12000000 Euros towards the Shareholder function costs

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

92C as well as the inter-play between the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ‘CUP’ claimed in first, Resale Price Method (RPM), Cost Plus Method (CPM) and Profits Split Method (PSM) in second and Transactional Net Margin (TNM) in third category; to be inter alia applicable in cases of both financial year and products similarity, operating and gross profit margin level

ORGANON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 633 & 2459/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaaci 6949 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C of the Act i.e ‘such other method as may be prescribed by the Board’ was not prescribed by the CBDT. Hence the five methods prescribed in the statute does not cover ‘bright line test’ (BLT) or the methodology followed by the ld TPO in the show cause notice. e) Without prejudice to the preliminary argument, that AMP expenses

ORGANON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 633 & 2459/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaaci 6949 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C of the Act i.e ‘such other method as may be prescribed by the Board’ was not prescribed by the CBDT. Hence the five methods prescribed in the statute does not cover ‘bright line test’ (BLT) or the methodology followed by the ld TPO in the show cause notice. e) Without prejudice to the preliminary argument, that AMP expenses

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

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

TDS Credit (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 10. Non grant of Foreign Tax Credit under section 91 of the Act (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 11. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section 234B of the Act (Refer our detailed grounds of appeal on this issue) 12. Erroneous Levy of Interest under section

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS obligations on the subject mentioned payments and the same has been accepted by the department. He also referred to the summary of emails from Pages 333 to 378 28 29 Philips India Ltd.. A.Yr.2012-13 and further emails which are enclosed in Exhibit II from pages 800 to 854 of Paper Book. He also referred

D.C.I.T.-CC-2(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GLOBAL WOOL ALLIANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 92C(2) read with Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 wherein it has been explicitly provided that where more than one uncontrolled transactions or prices are available then the ALP shall be the arithmetic mean of such prices. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in the case

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:

Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules 1962 (the Rules). 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in stating that the manner of determining the credit rating by the TPO was flawed and erroneous ignoring

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:

Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules 1962 (the Rules). 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in stating that the manner of determining the credit rating by the TPO was flawed and erroneous ignoring

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:

Section 92C of the Income- tax Act 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rules 1962 (the Rules). 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in stating that the manner of determining the credit rating by the TPO was flawed and erroneous ignoring