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

92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, in- come, losses or assets

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

section 92D/Rule 10D. This must be done before filing of return of Income. At the time of preparation of documentation, results of the financial year which has just ended, may not yet be available on prowess or other databases. Thus, for the purpose of documentation u/s 92D, use of earlier year's data is allowed. However, this does

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CERATIZIT INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 928/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. -Vs- M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 995/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation cost to total costs of the companies selected by the ld TPO (i.e 3.22%) vis a vis the assesses (i.e. 10.21%) was very high and accordingly cash profit / net sales should be used. The ld CITA accepted the cash profit on sales as the correct PLI for benchmarking the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing segment. 5.5.2. The assessee

M/S. CERATIZIT INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 928/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. -Vs- M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 995/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Ceratizit India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-3(1), N.D. [Pan: Aaccc 2210 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation cost to total costs of the companies selected by the ld TPO (i.e 3.22%) vis a vis the assesses (i.e. 10.21%) was very high and accordingly cash profit / net sales should be used. The ld CITA accepted the cash profit on sales as the correct PLI for benchmarking the international transactions pertaining to the manufacturing segment. 5.5.2. The assessee

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

depreciation of Rs.4,54,98,363/-). During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had shown revenues to the tune of Rs.265,69,48,108/- for its PE in India from West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Durgapur Projects Limited. 5. The contracts entered into by the assessee with the Indian parties suggest the scope of the contract, which

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2563 & 2564/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

depreciation of Rs.4,54,98,363/-). During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had shown revenues to the tune of Rs.265,69,48,108/- for its PE in India from West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Durgapur Projects Limited. 5. The contracts entered into by the assessee with the Indian parties suggest the scope of the contract, which

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 which is filed with the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings under section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  It is stated in paragraph no. 9 that the assessee has not purchased the same raw materials / components / GIT as those

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)

92D read with Rule 10D of the Act. 7.2. The assessee submitted the details of AMP expenditure for the financial year 2012-13 as under:- Media Spend Agency Fees Lighting 22,59,34,147 14,61,97,113 Consumer lifestyle 31,74,94,505 5,23,20,770 Health care 67,85,293 96,76,586 Corporate

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)

92D read with Rule 10D of the Act. 38 Philips India Ltd.. A.Yr.2012-13 7.2. The assessee submitted the details of AMP expenditure for the financial year 2011- 12 as under:- Media Spend Agency Fees Lighting 16,11,58,309 13,32,70,087 Consumer lifestyle 26,45,19,614 5,97,95,416 Health care

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

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

Depreciation & Amortization 12,570,870.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Operating expenditure 163,352,592.00 Operating profit 26,137,865.00 OP/OC 16.00% Reconciliation Add: Other income 418,608.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Less; Interest 1,851,986.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 PBT 242,704,487.00 PBT as penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed

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

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

Depreciation & Amortization 12,570,870.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Operating expenditure 163,352,592.00 Operating profit 26,137,865.00 OP/OC 16.00% Reconciliation Add: Other income 418,608.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Less; Interest 1,851,986.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 PBT 242,704,487.00 PBT as penalty Financials 24,704,487.00 Pg 53 AR 2011 Difference -- The TPO is directed