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

Bench: The Special Bench:

ii) to sub-section (2) of Section 245R of the Act - it is a prohibited exercise for the Authority. Indeed the Authority is enjoined to reject the application if the question involves determination of fair market value of the property. It follows that the Authority cannot pronounce any ruling on the applicability of sub-section (3) of section

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)

153,98,09,000/- Expenditure debited to P& L Account 181,98,66,000/- Less Bank Interest and charges 3,58,73,000/- Operating Expenditure 178,39,93,000/- Operating Profit 24,41,84,000/- Operating Profit/Operating Cost (-)13.68% Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (-)15.85% 3.6. The ld TPO keeping in view of the business process carried out by the assessee, came

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 :-

ii. Date on which the Date on which the reply was received by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata reply was received by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata, was 10/08/2015 Kolkata, was 10/08/2015 4.1.1. He relies on Explanation 1(viii) to Section 153 read with proviso to He relies on Explanation 1(viii) to Section 153 read with proviso

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 adjustment and that too with a specific direction to the AO for determining the arms length price "after considering fresh comparables." Since the assessment itself was not cancelled by the ITAT or completely set aside, it is the provisions of Section 153 (3) (ii

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 92, lays down the tests for such class of transactions whereby more than two AEs involved in such ‘transaction set’ constitute eligible transaction. But. the tangible benefit test of the facility or service availed must be unambiguously Page 10 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages

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

153 of that Legislation. The assessee is of the view that on considering the above sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case

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

153 of that Legislation. The assessee is of the view that on considering the above sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case

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

153 of that Legislation. The assessee is of the view that on considering the above sections of the UK transfer pricing legislation, it is evident that prima-facie the question that needs to be addressed is whether the loan would be provided in a third party scenario without the backing of any Group Company. It is the assessee's case

CENTURY PLYBOARDS(INDIA) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, LTU, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if— (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 or section

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(8) mandates the comparison of market price with transfer price and it nowhere provides for determining of the alleged inflation of profit and therefore the very first stage the TPO/AO was not correct. The ld AR also stated that inter-unit transfer/services were never disputed by the TPO/AO in the earlier years even the assessment were finalized

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(8) mandates the comparison of market price with transfer price and it nowhere provides for determining of the alleged inflation of profit and therefore the very first stage the TPO/AO was not correct. The ld AR also stated that inter-unit transfer/services were never disputed by the TPO/AO in the earlier years even the assessment were finalized

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)

153,99,23,000 23,50,27,000 177,49,50,000 CL 50,01,13,626 15,59,47,539 65,60,61,165 Healthcare 48,02,04,785 35,53,951 48,37,58,735 Healthcare (CM) 4,58,24,015 16,47,89,341 21,06,13,356 11 12 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification any issue by way of submission of any document

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification any issue by way of submission of any document

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification any issue by way of submission of any document

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification any issue by way of submission of any document

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT (IT), CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification any issue by way of submission of any document