DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

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

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

section 92A(2) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in 4 business segments as detailed below: 1. Consumer lifestyle 2. Healthcare 3. Lighting 4. Software Development Consumer Lifestyle consists of Domestic Appliances & Personal Care and Consumer Electronics divisions. It consists of Television, Shaving & Beauty, Audio & Video Multimedia, Domestic Appliances, Health & Wellness, and Peripherals & Accessories etc. A benchmarking study

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

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

section 92A(2) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in 4 business segments as detailed below: 1. Consumer lifestyle 2. Healthcare 3. Lighting 4. Software Development Consumer Lifestyle consists of Domestic Appliances & Personal Care and Consumer Electronics divisions. It consists of Television, Shaving & Beauty, Audio & Video Multimedia, Domestic Appliances, Health & Wellness, and Peripherals & Accessories etc. A benchmarking study

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Transfer Pricing Officer at "nil".' This is a slender yet crucial distinction that restricts the authority of the TPO. Whilst the report of the TPO in this case ultimately noted that the ALP was 'nil', since a comparable entity would pay 'nil' amount for these services, this Court noted that remarks concerning, and the final decision relating to, benefit arising

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

Transfer Pricing Officer at "nil".' This is a slender yet crucial distinction that restricts the authority of the TPO. Whilst the report of the TPO in this case ultimately noted that the ALP was 'nil', since a comparable entity would pay 'nil' amount for these services, this Court noted that remarks concerning, and the final decision relating to, benefit arising

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)

104% 11 March 2011 34867 128% 4.5. In the instant case, we are convinced that the assessee had indeed received the services from KPENV which fact is also acknowledged by the ld DRP in the hands of KPENV as stated supra. The benefits derived by the assessee out of these services by way of substantial cost reduction and increase

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)

104% 11 March 2011 34867 128% 4.5. In the instant case, we are convinced that the assessee had indeed received the services from KPENV which fact is also acknowledged by the ld DRP in the hands of KPENV as stated supra. The benefits derived by the assessee out of these services by way of substantial cost reduction and increase

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 92C of the Act. 8. The two comparable companies chosen by the TPO as comparable companies which was confirmed by DRP and which the assessee seeks to exclude now before the Tribunal are (i) 3i Infotech Ltd and (ii) Aftek Ltd. (earlier known as Aftek Infosys Ltd.). As far as 3i Infotech Ltd is concerned, the assesee

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

section 92C of the Act. 8. The two comparable companies chosen by the TPO as comparable companies which was confirmed by DRP and which the assessee seeks to exclude now before the Tribunal are (i) 3i Infotech Ltd and (ii) Aftek Ltd. (earlier known as Aftek Infosys Ltd.). As far as 3i Infotech Ltd is concerned, the assesee

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed by TPO at Rs. 104

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed by TPO at Rs. 104

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed by TPO at Rs. 104

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price over its cost incurred for brand promotion activities. Thus, the arm’s length price of the international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses international transaction pertaining to AMP expenses was computed by TPO was computed by TPO at Rs. 104

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment is possible. However in view of the amendment as set out above and insertion of the Explanation to Section 928, the Legislature has explicitly clarified that issuance of corporate guarantee falls within the meaning of 'International transaction'. Therefore respectfully following the 6 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Mcleod Russel India Limited decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIC INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

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

Section 92C of the Act. However the TPO u/s 92CA(3) the TPO rejected the assessee’s computation and evaluation of ALP. 4.2 The assessee in its transfer price study has worked out the mean PLI (operating profit/sales) of the comparable companies @ 3.10% in relation to its export to its AE. The assessee has demonstrated its operating profit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. D I C INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

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

Section 92C of the Act. However the TPO u/s 92CA(3) the TPO rejected the assessee’s computation and evaluation of ALP. 4.2 The assessee in its transfer price study has worked out the mean PLI (operating profit/sales) of the comparable companies @ 3.10% in relation to its export to its AE. The assessee has demonstrated its operating profit

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

104,250/- computed by the Appellant as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in allowing MAT credit of only INR 2,985,433/- in his final computation of tax as against MAT credit of INR 8,743,892/- claimed by the Appellant in its income tax return. 4. For that