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

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

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

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)

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

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]

Section 50B of also refers to transfer of an undertaking or division by way of sale i.e. ‘slump sale' and prescribes the mode of computing and calculating capital gains on such transactions.” 30. Now let us examine the MOU and the BTA entered into by the assessee and buyer M/s. K. S. Oil and reproduce the important recitals from them

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)

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

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

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. 6. Disregard of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the rules") The Learned AO, DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in not considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rule

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

transfer pricing study by the Appellant. 6. Disregard of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the rules") The Learned AO, DRP and the TPO erred in law and on facts in not considering the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of the comparable companies, having regard to the provisions of Rule

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLA-10(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

transferred. Thus he submits that price charged by the distribution company to the parties cannot be compared to the “charge” by the generating company. He argued that several additional fixed and variable costs like transmission network cost, commercial losses, wheeling charges, cross subsidy charges, customer servicing charges etc. are not included in a generation tariff as in the case

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

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

transfer pricing adjustment confirmed by the CIT(A) for three Months, viz: January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.Therefore, considering the factual position and position in law as explained above, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue ( in ITA No.1274 & 1275/Kol/2017) are dismissed and Assessee`s appeals ( in ITA No. 506 & 507/Kol/2017)are allowed. Now we adjudicate other grounds raised

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

transfer pricing adjustment confirmed by the CIT(A) for three Months, viz: January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.Therefore, considering the factual position and position in law as explained above, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue ( in ITA No.1274 & 1275/Kol/2017) are dismissed and Assessee`s appeals ( in ITA No. 506 & 507/Kol/2017)are allowed. Now we adjudicate other grounds raised

M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

transfer pricing adjustment confirmed by the CIT(A) for three Months, viz: January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.Therefore, considering the factual position and position in law as explained above, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue ( in ITA No.1274 & 1275/Kol/2017) are dismissed and Assessee`s appeals ( in ITA No. 506 & 507/Kol/2017)are allowed. Now we adjudicate other grounds raised

M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.506 & 507/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10& 2010-11) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-4, Kolkata

transfer pricing adjustment confirmed by the CIT(A) for three Months, viz: January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.Therefore, considering the factual position and position in law as explained above, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue ( in ITA No.1274 & 1275/Kol/2017) are dismissed and Assessee`s appeals ( in ITA No. 506 & 507/Kol/2017)are allowed. Now we adjudicate other grounds raised

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

price of the power transferred by the section 80IA eligible captive power plant of the assessee to the non-eligible manufacturing units of the assessee and thereby, reducing the claim of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act. 3.1 Both the ld. representatives have submitted that the Ground No.1 to 5 are covered in favour

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011- 12 & 2012-13 wherein this Tribunal

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011- 12 & 2012-13 wherein this Tribunal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011- 12 & 2012-13 wherein this Tribunal

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

pricing adjustment at Rs. 107,46,72,729/-. 9.3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011- 12 & 2012-13 wherein this Tribunal

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

125 to 131 of PB and the TPSR to demonstrate the manner in which the TPO had made the impugned transfer pricing TPO had made the impugned transfer pricing adjustment. To illustrate the same, adjustment. To illustrate the same, he first drew our attention to the chart setting out the computation of arithmetic drew our attention to the chart setting