DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Section 92F(ii) of the Act and Rule 10B(l)(e) which deals with arm's length price & transaction net margin method. On a perusal of the same, it is very clear that net margin method refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a cluster of such transaction and not operating margin

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

transfer pricing study report paragraph no. 5.1.6 contained in the transfer pricing study report – page no. 197 of the page no. 197 of the paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS AG (INR 9371 Thousand) paperbook) includes royalty paid by the assessee to EPCOS

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were owned

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

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

section 32 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, depreciation @ 30% would be available if the following conditions are satisfied: i) Moulds are owned by the assessee; ii) Moulds re used for the purpose of assessee’s business; and iii) Moulds are exclusively used in the rubber / plastic factory (b) In the instant case, moulds were owned

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)

price for Software Segment 5.1. The Learned AO, TPO and DRP erred in making an adjustment to the ALP of international transactions relating to software development services rendered by the Appellant and in not accepting the ALP of the international transaction as recorded in the books of accounts by the Appellant. 5.2. Without prejudice to the generality of the above

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. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

transfer of depreciable assets was reduced from the opening WDV of the respective block of assets. After such reduction, none of the blocks ceased to exist and therefore only with reference to the resultant reduced WDV, the assessee was granted depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. In particular, our attention was drawn to Page 190 of the paper book, which

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

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

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

111 (Delhi), (b) Akzo Noble Car Refinishes India (P) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi) and (c) Evonik Degussa India Private Limited M/s Philips India Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 Vs. DCIT (OSD), Circle-3(1) [ITA No. 7767/Mum/2012, AY 2008-09] to support his arguments. 020. It was the submissions that if the said two companies which are functionally different

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.67/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.485/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Assessee ) .. (Revenue) Appellant/Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri J. P Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Bikash Chanda, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Vi, Kolkata Dated 24.10.2014 Passed In Case No.Tp-07/Cit(A)-Vi/R-2/2012-13/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.67/Kol/2015. Its First Substantive Ground Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The

Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly excluded the loss making comparable entities. We see no reason to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s instant grievance. It emerges that the assessee has succeeded from the very issue of inclusion of loss making entities in preceding as well as succeeding assessment years. We find that this Revenue has failed to justify exclusion

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.67/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Appellant/Revenue) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.485/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Itc Infotech India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata 37, J.L Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaci7376Q (Assessee ) .. (Revenue) Appellant/Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri J. P Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Bikash Chanda, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Vi, Kolkata Dated 24.10.2014 Passed In Case No.Tp-07/Cit(A)-Vi/R-2/2012-13/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.67/Kol/2015. Its First Substantive Ground Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The

Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly excluded the loss making comparable entities. We see no reason to express our concurrence with the Revenue’s instant grievance. It emerges that the assessee has succeeded from the very issue of inclusion of loss making entities in preceding as well as succeeding assessment years. We find that this Revenue has failed to justify exclusion

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

price which had been adopted by assessee for electricity generated by eligible business transferred to its other business would be considered for purpose of computation of profits and gains of eligible business in terms of section 80-IA(8) - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee]” 4. Ground nos. 4 to 5 pertaining to allocation of common expenses

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the discussion made

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2600/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Philips India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer pricing - Computation of arm’s length price (Comparables and adjustments/Adjustments - General) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether answer to issue whether a transaction is at an arm's length price or not is not dependent on whether transaction results in an increase in assessee's profit; mere failure to establish that transactions

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

transfer pricing adjustment on this transaction. Further, he alleged that no method has been applied by the Ld. TPO or Ld. DRP to bench-mark these transactions. According to the Ld. Counsel, this issue was remanded back to the Ld. TPO in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (supra) and submitted that this ground