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

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

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

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

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

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

234B of the Act. 7. Interest under section 234C of the Act 7.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying Rs.39,46,000 as interest under section 234C of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings 8.1. The Appellant submits that based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, there was no basis for the AO to propose

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 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)

transfer pricing of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim of the Ld. AR is that the AMP transaction does not represent the international transaction between the AE’s therefore no question of determining the ALP of AMP transactions. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view

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 adjustment is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No.8 and 9 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “8. Entrance fees, subscription and cost of facilities paid to clubs The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 1,332,749 being Pyment made to clubs. 9. Provision for replacement guarantee

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 adjustment is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No.8 and 9 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “8. Entrance fees, subscription and cost of facilities paid to clubs The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 1,332,749 being Pyment made to clubs. 9. Provision for replacement guarantee

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

Transfer Pricing Officer in the computation of book profits for the purpose of computation under income under section 115JB. Other Miscellaneous Grounds: 18. For that the Assessing Officer erred in levying interest under section 234B

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

transfer pricing proceedings when the facts of the case including the underlying arguments have not altered. 4. Non-grant of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting the deduction claimed by the Appellant under

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. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the sum debited towards provision for slow-moving and non-moving inventory treating it as contingent in nature without taking cognizance of the submission of the Company that the provision reflected the erosion in value of such slow

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. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the sum debited towards provision for slow-moving and non-moving inventory treating it as contingent in nature without taking cognizance of the submission of the Company that the provision reflected the erosion in value of such slow

BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CENTAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

transfer pricing adjustment be deleted. 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services (Currently known as Bothra Shipping services Pvt. Ltd.) 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing 25% of the dock labour

GE HEALTHCARE FINLAND OY(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

transfer pricing adjustment in the Assessment Order has resulted in erosion of tax revenue to the extent of 23.66% (33.66%-10%). 4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in benchmarking the alleged international transaction of interest payable on loan on the basis of prime lending rate of SBI as opposed to 3 I.T.A

GE HEALTHCARE FINLAND OY(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INSTRUMENTARIUM CORPORATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

transfer pricing adjustment in the Assessment Order has resulted in erosion of tax revenue to the extent of 23.66% (33.66%-10%). 4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in benchmarking the alleged international transaction of interest payable on loan on the basis of prime lending rate of SBI as opposed to 3 I.T.A

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1068/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07

transfer pricing adjustment on Software services as against the results at entity level consistently considered by him for other assessment years. 14 M/s. Philips India Ltd. A.Yr.2006-07 3.2 The Ld. AO, and the TPO erred in not appreciating that the TPO in its own orders for preceding years i.e. AY 2005-06 as well as in subsequent years

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

RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E (JV),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-32, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

234B of Rs.81,27,990/-. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal and submitted that it is consequential in nature. Accordingly, this ground is also rejected. 4. Ground No. 11 is a general ground of appeal, which does not call for recording of any finding. 5. In Grounds

M/S INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1957/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Indian Explosives Private Ltd.......................…..…….……………………………………………………..……Appellant 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan: Aaaci 6548 N] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata..……….….….……………….......Respondent Appearances By: Miss Oindrila Bala & Shri Saurabh Kedia, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 24Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 7Th,2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Dt. 26/07/2017, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts In Brief:-

transfer pricing regime is as to what would be the price to be paid by an independent enterprise vis-à-vis the one shown by the concerned tax payer; respectively. The very legal position is reiterated in tribunal’s other decisions in Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT 2016 139 DTR 1 (Mum.), as well as in L.K. India

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,40,38,728/-made in respect of Corporate Guarantees provided by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs 5,17,964/- by invoking