M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ERSTWHILE PHILIPS SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T.(TRANSFER PRICING) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 32 & 33/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Philips India Limited Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, Tower A Vs (Transfer Pricing-Ii), Bangalore [Presently Deputy Dlf Park, 08 Block Af Commissioner/Assistant Major Arterial Road Commissioner Of Income-Tax New Town Transfer Pricing 2, Kolkata Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aabcp9487A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Even Dt. 15/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Maintainability Of The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Rectification Orders Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (In Short “Tpo”) U/S 154 R.W. Sub-Section (5) To Section 92Ca Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Impugned Orders Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Holding That As Per The Provisions Of Section 246A Of The Act, Order U/S 92Ca Or Its Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Passed By The Tpo Is 2

Pricing Officer (ld. TPO) dated 21/06/2007, rejecting the application of the assessee u/s 154 r.w.s. 92CA(5) of the Act dated 08/01/2007 whereas ITA No. 32/Kol/2023 pertains to the suo moto rectification order passed by the ld. TPO u/s 154 of the Act r.w.s. 92CA(5) of the Act, dated 20/12/2007 enhancing the Transfer

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

rectification and other related services. CUP can be invoked by comparing the price charged for property or services transferred in a controlled transaction to the price charged for property or services transferred in a comparable uncontrolled transaction in comparable circumstances. The facts here are that the AE is supplying a mix of the product and services and renders complete service

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

Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 supports this view in para 7.13 where it is explained that where higher credit rating of Associated Enterprise is due to a guarantee by another group member, such association positively enhances the profit making potential of that Associated Enterprise. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the Page 27 of 41 I.T.A

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

Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 supports this view in para 7.13 where it is explained that where higher credit rating of Associated Enterprise is due to a guarantee by another group member, such association positively enhances the profit making potential of that Associated Enterprise. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the Page 27 of 41 I.T.A

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

rectification order u/s. 154 that too specifically regarding computation of LTCG of the slump sale of Haldia Unit was the only issue which was brought to the knowledge of the AO, who accepted 10 Ambo Agro Products Ltd., AY 2009-10 the mistake which was apparent on the face of record and rectified the same and also the fact

JAMSHEDPUR CONTINUOUS ANNEALING & PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

transfer pricing regulations do not provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be disregarded to compute the operating margin of the tax payer and the comparables. disregarded to compute the operating margin

JAMSHEDPUR CONTINUOUS ANNEALING & PROCESSING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

transfer pricing regulations do not provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be provide for mandatory deduction of depreciation and that depreciation could be disregarded to compute the operating margin of the tax payer and the comparables. disregarded to compute the operating margin

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

price being paid remains 5.40 ps. Per unit. The act that the seller retains only Rs.5.32 ps. Out of the aid collection and passes on 8 paise per unit to the Government in the form of electricity duty, to our mind, would make no difference. This question, is therefore, not required to be considered.” ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, R-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

price being paid remains 5.40 ps. Per unit. The act that the seller retains only Rs.5.32 ps. Out of the aid collection and passes on 8 paise per unit to the Government in the form of electricity duty, to our mind, would make no difference. This question, is therefore, not required to be considered.” ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008

DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

price being paid remains 5.40 ps. Per unit. The act that the seller retains only Rs.5.32 ps. Out of the aid collection and passes on 8 paise per unit to the Government in the form of electricity duty, to our mind, would make no difference. This question, is therefore, not required to be considered.” ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 154 of the Act in assessee’s appeal regarding the validity of the rectification order is allowed in favour of assessee, then the remaining grounds of assessee’s appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage. 22. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Coming to Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2355/Kol/2005 23. Hence

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 154 of the Act in assessee’s appeal regarding the validity of the rectification order is allowed in favour of assessee, then the remaining grounds of assessee’s appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage. 22. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Coming to Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2355/Kol/2005 23. Hence

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 154 of the Act in assessee’s appeal regarding the validity of the rectification order is allowed in favour of assessee, then the remaining grounds of assessee’s appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage. 22. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Coming to Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2355/Kol/2005 23. Hence

CARGO PARTNER LOGISTICS INDIA,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “TPO”) passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “Panel”) and consequently incorporated by the Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) in the assessment order u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change

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]

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 10.04.2019 (although the same is neither served upon the assessee nor is available on the IT portal). If that be so, then the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act dated 27.12.2017 stood merged with the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 10.04.2019. In that view of the matter the revisionary

T.K.M.GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "TPO") passed u/s 92 CA(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), subsequently confirmed in part by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "Panel") and consequently incorporated by the Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") in the assessment order U/S