DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

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

transfer pricing adjustment in respect corporate guarantee @ 2.5% and created additional charge in connection with the corporate guarantee at Rs.9,00,979/-, observing the following: C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “36 In a recent case, Hon`ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Four Soft Ltd. (ITA No.1495/HYD/2010

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

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

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

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

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]

Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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]

Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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)

150 TTJ 824 (Mumbai) the tribunal on the issue as to whether the TPO was empowered to determine the ALP at nil, held that the taxpayer had to establish before the TPO that the payments made were commensurate to the volume and quality of the service and that such costs were comparable. The Tribunal further held that when commensurate benefit

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)

150 TTJ 824 (Mumbai) the tribunal on the issue as to whether the TPO was empowered to determine the ALP at nil, held that the taxpayer had to establish before the TPO that the payments made were commensurate to the volume and quality of the service and that such costs were comparable. The Tribunal further held that when commensurate benefit

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

150 to 151 of the paper book is reproduced as below: - “37.1. In response to the rebuttal reasons put forward by the assesse, it is to be mentioned here that the companies that have been selected as comparable which are broadly functioning in the gas industry. The major condition for Transfer Pricing Analysis is comparability criteria, thus while price

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO passedthe order dated 28.10.2016 u/s 92CA(3) and observed and compared that eligible unit of the assessee with same companies amount to Rs. 3.23 per unit has been adopted as ALP and in the way the transfer price of power for eligible unit was reduced to Rs. 2,26,20,150

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO passedthe order dated 28.10.2016 u/s 92CA(3) and observed and compared that eligible unit of the assessee with same companies amount to Rs. 3.23 per unit has been adopted as ALP and in the way the transfer price of power for eligible unit was reduced to Rs. 2,26,20,150

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

transfer pricing study. 14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred and unjustified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing

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]

transfer pricing adjustment did not call for any interference. 11. Thereafter the Ld. A.R. drew our attention to Section 92C of the Act, regarding computation of arm’s length price, which is reproduced as under: “Section 92C computation of arm’s length price (1) The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

transfer pricing adjustment back to the TPO for afresh adjudication. We therefore leave it open for him to adjudicate all factual as well as legal issues; as the case may be in consequential proceedings. The assessee’s former five substantive grounds to this effect are accepted for statistical purposes. 18. The assessee’s next substantive ground pleads that