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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

144C (15), the assessment order passed by the AO is to be held is illegal and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. We do so. 10. As we have seen in the reproductions above, the issuance of corrigendum by the Assessing Officer was not allowed to be given effect by the Hon'ble Court as well. What

ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-7.1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HI TECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions

M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD.,SILIGURI vs. PCIT-1, , KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the appellant or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under

I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S PCM STRESCON OVERSEAS VENTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal preferred by the revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey]

reassessment or recomputation is made on the appellant or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263 or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both\nthe appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment. In other\nwords, the Assessing Officer had 465 days in hand for completing the\nreassessment and the respective last date for such completion was\nMay 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021\nwhich in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation.\n011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 144C pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 7. Reassessment barred by limitation The Learned AO argued that the reassessment

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

WITZENMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1423/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Witzenmann India Private Limited....……….........…..........….…… Appellant Nsc Building, Plot No.12, Block – Aq, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. [Pan: Aaach7739L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.......….....…….............…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arun Chhabra, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 16, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessment Dated Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Pursuant To The Transfer Pricing Adjustment. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 12.04.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Read With Section 144C & 144C(5) Of The Act Was Wrong & Illegal & Void Ab Initio. The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Following Sequence Of Events: Particulars In Case Of The Appellant

reassessment proceedings, therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel decided that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the aforesaid invalid and void draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel held that the case of the assessee not being a “eligible assessee” as per the provisions of section 144C

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment order in the light of the Ld Pr. CIT order dated 27.07.2016, the assessee company got amalgamated with M/s. Nihon Impex Private Ltd. We note that it was the result of the scheme of amalgamation filed before the Hon’ble NCLT which was duly sanctioned vide order dated 21.12.2018. With this amalgamation made effective from 01.04.2017, the assessee company

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

section (1) and sub-section (2)of section 92C of the Act, which leads to violation of the provision of sub-section(3) of section 92CA of the Act read with sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 92C are given below for ready reference: “Section 92C: Computation of arm’s length price

M/S TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144C(5) of the Act dated 19.09.2024. Subsequent to these directions the total transfer pricing adjustment made vide order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2023 at ₹ 24,79,701/- remained unchanged. Consequently, the assessment order was made by adding the variation of ₹ 24,79,701/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 144C was passed on 31.10.2016 with total income of Rs. 4,11,86,92,370/-. Subsequently the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 and the assessment was framed u/s 147/144/254/143(3) dated 27.12.2016 by making various additions. Pertinent to note that the assessee has not filed

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 144C was passed on 31.10.2016 with total income of Rs. 4,11,86,92,370/-. Subsequently the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 and the assessment was framed u/s 147/144/254/143(3) dated 27.12.2016 by making various additions. Pertinent to note that the assessee has not 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]

reassessment and addition made thereon to this extent was objected to by the assessee apart from the contesting the issue on merits. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 (x) The ld DRP passed an order on 24.6.2015 stating that the assessee is not an eligible assessee as defined in section 144C

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]

reassessment and addition made thereon to this extent was objected to by the assessee apart from the contesting the issue on merits. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 (x) The ld DRP passed an order on 24.6.2015 stating that the assessee is not an eligible assessee as defined in section 144C