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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

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

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initi- ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: 1,44,77,042/-] Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 6.1 The Ld. TPO had proposed the adjustment at 200 bps after detailed analysis of the Transfer Pricing Study Report filed

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

u/s 264 contains the summary, which is identical in both the order. The summary is reproduced below: "8. To sum up OffShore supply Profit from offshore supply of equipment/machinery is deemed to accrue or arise to the petitioner under Indian Income tax Act, as it has arisen to the petitioner through or from business connection in India. Only such part

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

u/s 264 contains the summary, which is identical in both the order. The summary is reproduced below: "8. To sum up OffShore supply Profit from offshore supply of equipment/machinery is deemed to accrue or arise to the petitioner under Indian Income tax Act, as it has arisen to the petitioner through or from business connection in India. Only such part

REDTECH NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Redtech Network India Private Limited.......................................................……………….…......Appellant Godrej Waterside 5Th Floor Unit-504 Sector-V Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcb 5398 J] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata……....................………....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

u/s 14A of the Act. He disallow disallowed the claim of bad debts. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is before us on the following grounds: Aggrieved the assessee is before us on the following grounds:- “1. Erroneous determination of arm's length price in relation 1. Erroneous determination of arm's length price in relation to softwa to software development services

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

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

1. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) (Acropetal):- ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 46 The Hon'ble DRP in their Directions had rightly rejected Acropetal by stating that it is functionally not comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, the contentions of the assessee against Acropetal is reproduced as under: (i) Functionally

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

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

1. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) (Acropetal):- ITA No.863 & 539/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(2) Kol. Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. Page 46 The Hon'ble DRP in their Directions had rightly rejected Acropetal by stating that it is functionally not comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, the contentions of the assessee against Acropetal is reproduced as under: (i) Functionally

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to / alter / amend / substitute any of the above grounds of appeal, at the time, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law.” 4. Brief facts of the case

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

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

u/s 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 25.10.2017. The facts of the case are brought out in the Dispute Resolution Panel’s (‘DRP’) order in Page no.1 & 2 which is extracted below for ready reference: “Earnest Towers Private Limited is engaged in the business of real estate development and it is promoted

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)

92B of the Act, so as to invoke the provisions of section 92 of the Act; 3.3 The TPO erred in using the formula of AMP/Sales while determining the excess AMP spend, which tantamounts to bright line test and which has been rejected by the Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments; 3.4 The TPO erred in misinterpreting and placing

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)

92B of the Act, so as to invoke the provisions of section 92 of the Act; 3.3 The TPO erred in using the formula of AMP/Sales while determining the excess AMP spend, which tantamount to bright line test and which has been rejected by the Hon’ble High Courts in various judgments; 3.4 Misinterpreting and placing incorrect reliance

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.”\n\nFacts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.”\nFacts of the case as stated in the order