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

8. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submits that this lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer is at best a procedural lapse and the matter should, therefore, be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo. 9. We are, however, unable to see any legally sustainable merits in the stand so taken

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 computation were substituted. The time limits prescribed there-under are as follows: ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 − Clause (1) of Section 153 provides that the time limit for completion of assessment under Section 143(3)/144 of the Act is twenty-one months from the end of the relevant assessment

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 computation were substituted. The time limits prescribed there-under are as follows: ITA No.2652/Kol/2019 & CO No. 15/Kol/2020 PCM Strescon Overseas Ventures Ltd., AY 2012-13 − Clause (1) of Section 153 provides that the time limit for completion of assessment under Section 143(3)/144 of the Act is twenty-one months from the end of the relevant assessment

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

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

8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order

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

8\nITC LIMITED; A.Ys.1992-93 & 1993-94\nITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024\nhas to be excluded for calculating the limitation period for passing the\nassessment order. The interim order staying the passing of\nassessment order was passed by the Court on 22.12.1997. The\nAssessee's writ petition for the assessment year 1992-93 was finally\ndisposed

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

144C pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 7. Reassessment barred by limitation The Learned AO argued that the reassessment is barred by limitation. He argued that the notice u/s 148 was issued on the assessee on 26.3.2014. The time limit for ITA No. 616/Kol/2015-A-AM 10 M/s.Bucyrus (I) P.Ltd Merged with M/s. Caterpillar (I) P .Ltd. completion of this 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) ..

144C(1) of the Act did not make any adverse comment under section 37 (1) of the Act in respect of the said transaction after examining the details of the said transaction submitted by the appellant to the Ld. TPO and subsequently to the Ld. AO as per his direction. Without prejudice to what we have stated in ground

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]

section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITA No. 1051/Kol/2015 – Asst Year

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]

section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITA No. 1051/Kol/2015 – Asst Year

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]

section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical in nature, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. Labvantage Solution Pvt. Ltd. AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITA No. 1051/Kol/2015 – Asst Year

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]

8 October 2015, a communication was addressed by the DGM (Finance) for MSIL in response to the notice under Section 142 (1) adverting to the case of SPIL for AY 2012-13. 13. On 12 April 2016, MSIL filed its appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel9 as successor in interest of the erstwhile SPIL, since amalgamated. Form 35A was verified

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

8 taxmann.Com 170 the Bangalore Tribunal upheld the adjustment made by the TPO where the payments to be made to AE were not dependent on the nature and volume of services and even the appellant failed to prove any commensurate benefit against such payments. AT & S India (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 Activities providing incidental or remote benefits

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

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]

144C(1) vide order dated 26.02.2015. In our opinion , the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the conditions as envisaged by proviso to Section 147 of 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1285 & 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. the Act are satisfied and not otherwise. In other words, there

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]

144C(1) vide order dated 26.02.2015. In our opinion , the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act can only be made if the conditions as envisaged by proviso to Section 147 of 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1285 & 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. the Act are satisfied and not otherwise. In other words, there