M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

section 144C of the Act. Transfer pricing grounds 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Transfer Pricing 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Transfer Pricing 5. On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned

M/S INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: The Special Bench:

c) a resultant base erosion of 26.75% to the Indian revenue. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the CBDT circular no. 14 of 2001 which, inter alia, states that “..the basic intention underlying the new transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits by manipulating prices charged or paid in international transactions, thereby eroding the country

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer of a capital asset situate in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, the Explanation 1 below it mentions that for the purposes of this Clause, in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India to him through or from operations which are confined to the purchase

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arm's length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24.01.2014 applied CUP method and determined the arm's length price of international transactions of payment of service fees at Nil as against Rs.3,45,55,434/- determined

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

transfer of capital asset situated in India, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The reply of the assessee is not tenable. In this context, the provisions of Section 195(1) of the Act may be referred and it reads as under: "Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company

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]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

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]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 112/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Vs Principal Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AAECP2571Q)) . tax, - 1, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 2652/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Kolkata Vs PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures

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

C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE 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 Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 12A Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571301, Mysore District, Karnataka, Chowringhee Square, India. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AAECA 2930 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant

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]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. J. J. Exporters Ltd. Circle-11(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACJ6722H) Assessee Respondent & C.O. No.71/Kol/2018 In I.T.A

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]

C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. J. J. Exporters Ltd. Circle-11(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACJ6722H) Assessee Respondent & C.O. No.71/Kol/2018 In I.T.A

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

13 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 provide a true and fair analysis that was undertaken with fair and prudent business intent. It would be evident from the above that the assessee's analysis was based on sound transfer pricing principles and that the assessee had not undertaken the transaction to avoid taxes. To conclude, as per Section

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case is a 100% subsidiary

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case is a 100% subsidiary

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.6,06,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which is sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the extent of Rs.2,60,32,000/-. 3. The assessee in the present case is a 100% subsidiary

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

price for the GK 3 project equal to: (i) 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for the quantity shipped is last ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2015 M/s. Panasonic Energy Inddia Co Ltd vs. Pri. CIT Assessment year: 2009-10 (18") Shipment. (a) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein by the virtue

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished by the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13, the assesseecompany has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Nature of services Amount (Rs.) Purchase of raw material 88,41,91,807/- Purchase of traded or finished

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

section 144C(13)/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. As per the Transfer pricing (TP) document furnished by the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13, the assesseecompany has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Nature of services Amount (Rs.) Purchase of raw material 88,41,91,807/- Purchase of traded or finished