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

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

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 :-

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 27/ 92CA(3) of the Act on 27/01/2015. At para 6 of this order, the ALP of the a 6 of this order, the ALP of the international transaction has been determined as follows: international transaction has been determined as follows:- “ 7.0. Since

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]

viii. Other incomes not pertaining to the operations Similarly, the following expenses which are non-operating and provisions are excluded from operating expenses: i. Provisions other than provisions for bad debts ii. Loss on sale of assets/investments iii. Loss on revaluation of assets iv. Foreign exchange loss v. Other expenses not pertaining to the operations. Similarly, extra ordinary expenses

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]

viii. Other incomes not pertaining to the operations Similarly, the following expenses which are non-operating and provisions are excluded from operating expenses: i. Provisions other than provisions for bad debts ii. Loss on sale of assets/investments iii. Loss on revaluation of assets iv. Foreign exchange loss v. Other expenses not pertaining to the operations. Similarly, extra ordinary expenses

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

36(1)(viii) by Rs.30,80,96,948/ in his order which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores by invoking Rule

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

36(1)(viii) by Rs.30,80,96,948/ in his order which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A amounting to Rs. 1.47 crores by invoking Rule

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

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

viii. The assessee has then referred to HMRC INTM 542012, 542040, 542090, and 542100 and suggested that these also support the contentions made by it. C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. ix. The assessee has also referred to paragraph 1.65 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2010) and suggested that

M/S. BATA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

36(1)(v), or as required by or under any other law for the time being in force. In the instant case, there was no dispute that the contribution made by the assessee was not towards a recognised fund or approved superannuation fund or approved gratuity fund. Hence, the question was whether the payment made by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

36(1)(v), or as required by or under any other law for the time being in force. In the instant case, there was no dispute that the contribution made by the assessee was not towards a recognised fund or approved superannuation fund or approved gratuity fund. Hence, the question was whether the payment made by the assessee

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

36. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on a reference by the AO chose seven comparable companies whose arithmetic mean of profit margin was 23.18%. The TPO accordingly computed the addition to the total income on account of adjustment of arm’s length price as follows : “15. Based on the above, the following comparables are being used on the basis

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

36. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on a reference by the AO chose seven comparable companies whose arithmetic mean of profit margin was 23.18%. The TPO accordingly computed the addition to the total income on account of adjustment of arm’s length price as follows : “15. Based on the above, the following comparables are being used on the basis

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

transfer. (b) Both the parties shall have the right to forward consolidations to the other party reflecting airfreight charges, valuation and related charges and Agent’s disbursements on a chargeable to consignee basis as the occasion demands. (c) Profit share will be on a 50/50 basis between BL and ABC and the profit is determined as the difference between

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Price Water House in Assessment Year 2003-04. In their report dated 19/11/2003, they have clearly stated that the amount of set off available in future will be lesser by the amount of Rs.8,83,81,000/-. A copy of this report is enclosed which forms a part of this order as Annexure. Surprisingly, the assessee company has changed their