ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (R. Kiruthiga) DCIT, Circle-3(2), Gangtok”. 8. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income assessable in the hands of the assessee. Thereafter he prepared a detailed computation of income available on pages no. 53 to 55 of the record

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO/ AO has not considered the benefit of variation / deduction of 3 per cent from the arithmetic mean as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C, which would warrant your goodself to disregard the analysis undertaken by the assessee and undertake a fresh analysis.) 3.7.6. The assessee pointed out the error in computation of PLI by the ld TPO as under :- 2· Error in computation of PLI of the assessee (Refer Point No. 5 of the notice) Reference point no. 5 of the subject notice

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 1 relating to selection of comparables by the TPO whose results are not available in the public domain, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any specific contention in support of the assessee’s case on this issue. As rightly held

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” Additional

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Act. I.T.A. No 3412/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 4114/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & ITA-2722/MUM/2011 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Page 16 of 23 Revenue’s appeal “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the operating profit of the assessee

DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

92C(2) of the Act. I.T.A. No 3412/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 4114/MUM/2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & ITA-2722/MUM/2011 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Page 16 of 23 Revenue’s appeal “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the operating profit of the assessee

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

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. 4.1. In this regard, the relevant Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes requires consideration. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 para 2 is reproduced hereunder;- “ In order to make a reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. 4.1. In this regard, the relevant Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes requires consideration. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 para 2 is reproduced hereunder;- “ In order to make a reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer

M/S LABVANTAGE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. 4.1. In this regard, the relevant Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes requires consideration. For the sake of convenience, the said Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003 para 2 is reproduced hereunder;- “ In order to make a reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) 13.1. The Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 14. Dividend Distribution Tax 14.1 The learned AO erred in wrongly computing additional tax and interest payable on distributed profit of Rs. 4,44,320 without assigning any reason thereto. The appellant submits that the above grounds are independent

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

u/s 14A Rs. 5,38,000/- (iii) Disallowance of interest Rs. 6,025/- expenses 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144C(5) of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “1. Orders bad in law and on facts 1.1. That the order passed