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)

TP) clarified that it was absolutely necessary for the taxpayer to relate costs to benefits and demonstrate the value received on account of the payment. Here it is worth mentioning that the High Court in this judgment has sought to create a distinction between the In the case of Deloitte Consulting India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2012] benefit test

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)

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 does not constitute an international transaction, it was pleaded that for bright line test, as per the OECD guidelines in para 1.42 thereon, the comparable

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)

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 does not constitute an international transaction, it was pleaded that for bright line test, as per the OECD guidelines in para 1.42 thereon, the comparable

JASO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

TP report has rejected this method. He submitted that the TPO has not examined the computation of ALP under RPM and hence, if the Bench comes to a conclusion that RPM as the MAM then the issue should be remitted to the file of the TPO for computation of the ALP. 6.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

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)

methods prescribed under the Indian TP provisions. In the context of cost sharing arrangement, the Hon'ble High Court opined that concept of base erosion is not a logical inference from the fact that the AEs have only asked for reimbursement of cost. This being a transaction between related parties, whether that cost itself is inflated or not only

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

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

TP) clarified that it was absolutely necessary for the taxpayer to relate costs to benefits and demonstrate the value received on account of the payment. Here it is worth mentioning that the High Court in this judgment has sought to create a distinction between the In the case of Deloitte Consulting India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2012] benefit test

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

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

TP) clarified that it was absolutely necessary for the taxpayer to relate costs to benefits and demonstrate the value received on account of the payment. Here it is worth mentioning that the High Court in this judgment has sought to create a distinction between the In the case of Deloitte Consulting India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2012] benefit test

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

methods prescribed under the Indian TP provisions. In the context of cost sharing arrangement, the Hon'ble High Court opined that concept of base erosion is not a logical inference from the fact that the AEs have only asked for reimbursement of cost. This being a transaction between related parties, whether that cost itself is inflated or not only

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR- 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS) Rs 55,80,071/- The assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) with a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Net Cost Plus (NCP) Margin to demonstrate the arm’s length nature of the international transaction. The assessee arrived at a set of 12 comparable companies with a NCP margin of 15.68%. Table

M/S. LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2013-14 in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 927 & 2400/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

TDS) Rs 55,80,071/- The assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) with a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Net Cost Plus (NCP) Margin to demonstrate the arm’s length nature of the international transaction. The assessee arrived at a set of 12 comparable companies with a NCP margin of 15.68%. Table

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:

TDS on account of advertisements. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances u/s 40A(9) for payments made to the employees recreation club. 7. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

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:

TDS on account of advertisements. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances u/s 40A(9) for payments made to the employees recreation club. 7. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

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:

TDS on account of advertisements. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances u/s 40A(9) for payments made to the employees recreation club. 7. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

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

TP Report page 29 6,04,060 O Value of AE transactions as 3CEB report 1,17,041 claimed (Excluding capital costs and interest) P Third party transactions on costs N­O 4,87,019 4,87,019 side Q Adjusted value of AE M­P 91,612 transaction on costs side R 105 % of Adjusted value

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

method of determination of arms length price and the PLI chosen by the assessee were identical as in A.Y.2007-08. The assessee chose nine comparable companies whose arithmetic mean of operating margin was 3.1%. The assesse’s PLI was 13.76% computed in the following manner :- 22 A.Yr.2007-08 & 2008-09 The assessee claimed that the price charged in the international

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

method of determination of arms length price and the PLI chosen by the assessee were identical as in A.Y.2007-08. The assessee chose nine comparable companies whose arithmetic mean of operating margin was 3.1%. The assesse’s PLI was 13.76% computed in the following manner :- 22 A.Yr.2007-08 & 2008-09 The assessee claimed that the price charged in the international

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TP) 7. In view of the above and respectfully following the judgments of the High Courts & Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, I hold that the interest rate charged by the appellant from AE was required to be benchmarked against the prevailing LIBOR (US) in FY 2008-09, i.e. 1.13%. Since the interest rate charged by the appellant on the loans granted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

TP) 7. In view of the above and respectfully following the judgments of the High Courts & Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, I hold that the interest rate charged by the appellant from AE was required to be benchmarked against the prevailing LIBOR (US) in FY 2008-09, i.e. 1.13%. Since the interest rate charged by the appellant on the loans granted