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 271(1) (c ) of the Act, which are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 6. Now we shall take first common issue of these two appeals, which relates to whether the foreign associated enterprises (AE) can be considered as a tested party as per Indian Transfer Pricing

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)

transfer pricing adjustments are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs 1,07,065/- u/s 14A of the Act read with third limb of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 271(1)(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

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

section 271(1)(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

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

section 271(1)(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

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

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. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

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

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c). 2. The main issue involved in these cross appeals relates to the addition of Rs.7,42,23,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of transfer pricing

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 16,27,69,727 on the basis that the Appellant should have made operating profit/ total cost margin of 15.36 % with respect to its software development services. 5.3. The Learned AO and DRP erred in selecting some functionally non- comparable companies for determination of arm's length price. 5.4. Even for some of the accepted

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

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the guarantee fees charged by the Appellant to its associated enterprise. 3.2. The corporate guarantee issued by the Appellant in favour of the AE is a shareholder's activity which does not require any charge and hence cannot be considered as an international transaction. 3.3. Without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) (in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP)), erred in not accepting the returned income of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 3,66,17,09,400/- and enhancing the same by Rs. 3,12,83,015/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) (in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP)), erred in not accepting the returned income of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 3,66,17,09,400/- and enhancing the same by Rs. 3,12,83,015/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO

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 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

271,671/- written back in the relevant previous year. We therefore decline Revenue’s instant second substantive ground as well in view of the above factual position. 6. The Revenue’s third substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing warrant written back amount of ₹6,67,157/- as deleted in the lower appellate proceedings. The Assessing