Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

…law. Thus, not entertained". 66. He also relied upon the following judgments on similar point. • CIT(A) v. Lever India Exports Limited (2017) 246 Taxman 133 (Bombay) • CIT LTU v. SI Group-India Limited (2019] 265 Taxman 204 (Bombay) • CIT v. Merck Ltd (2016) 389 ITR 70 (Bombay) • CIT v. Kodak India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 288 CTR 46 (Bombay) 67. Accordingly, he submitted that adhoc adjustment of 10% o the value of international transaction declared by the assessee is not justified. 68. In so far as relying on the TP study report of the Indian AEs to justify the arm's length nature of its international transaction, Ld.…

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

…law. Thus, not entertained". 66. He also relied upon the following judgments on similar point. • CIT(A) v. Lever India Exports Limited (2017) 246 Taxman 133 (Bombay) • CIT LTU v. SI Group-India Limited (2019] 265 Taxman 204 (Bombay) • CIT v. Merck Ltd (2016) 389 ITR 70 (Bombay) • CIT v. Kodak India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 288 CTR 46 (Bombay) 67. Accordingly, he submitted that adhoc adjustment of 10% o the value of international transaction declared by the assessee is not justified. 68. In so far as relying on the TP study report of the Indian AEs to justify the arm's length nature of its international transaction, Ld.…

RUBICON RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUBICON RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.6647/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- circle Known as Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine MedOne House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआ…

NTT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

…the revenue with respect to non applicability of previous judgments in assessee’s own case relied and referred above, and submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal in earlier years has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Merk Limited (389 ITR 70). It is submitted that in those judgments of Hon’ble Tribunal, based on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Merk Limited (supra), the stand of the assessee was confirmed wherein it adjustment is required to be made. Further, even if the management service fee requires separate benchmarking, no adjustment is required for the reason that as…

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nMISS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.4301/Mum/2024\n(Assessment year: 2020-21)\nUnilever India Exports Limited VS Assistant Commissioner of Income\nUnilever House, B.D. Sawant\nMarg, Chakala, Andheri East,\nSahar P & T Colony S.O.,\nMumbai\nPAN: AAACI0991D\nAPPELLANT\nTax, Circle-5(3), Mumbai\nKautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near\nVidesh Bhawan, G Block BKC,\nBandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),\nMumbai-400 051\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by : Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar a/w\nShri Harish S…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

…l is not sustainable if the\nTPO has not followed any one of the prescribed methods:\nCIT v/s. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2007) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. reported in [2017] 297 CTR 480 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 288 CTR 46 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. SI Group India Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 204 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Delhi)\n7. 2. Thus, in view of the foregoing judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submits that\nsince the TPO did not resort to any one of the methods provided for in section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the pa…

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

…law. Thus, not entertained”. 66. He also relied upon the following judgments on similar point.  CIT(A) v. Lever India Exports Limited [2017] 246 Taxman 133 (Bombay)  CIT LTU v. SI Group-India Limited [2019] 265 Taxman 204 (Bombay)  CIT v. Merck Ltd [2016] 389 ITR 70 (Bombay) CIT v. Kodak India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 288 CTR 46 (Bombay)  67. Accordingly, he submitted that adhoc adjustment of 10% o the value of international transaction declared by the assessee is not justified. 68. In so far as relying on the TP study report of the Indian AEs to justify the arm’s length nature of its international transaction, Ld.…

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…n support of the said proposition, he placed reliance on certain case laws, which inter alia, includes the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd (2017)(292 CTR 393) and CIT vs. Kodak India Pvt Ltd (2017)(288 CTR 46)(Bom). 12.3 We heard rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed earlier that the TPO has determined the ALP of both the international transactions as NIL, i.e., the TPO did not determine the ALP under any of the prescribed methods. The question as to whether the TPO can determine the ALP of international transactions as NIL was examined…

NTT INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/TAX/ITO, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

…ces. Both the cases are not helpful to decide the issue before us. 10. From the above observation, it is evident that the Tribunal in assessee’s case for AY 2011-12 has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 and the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Nielsen (India) Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 8799/Mum/2012) and where on identical facts, it has been held that if the assessee availed even some of the services listed out in the composite agreement is suffice to prove the consideration paid to the AE’s and in case of intra group service payment, the TPO does…

ACC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…h price by the Ld TPO u/s section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. The contention of the Ld. counsel is further supported by thejudgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 (Mum). In the said case the Hon’ble HighCourt decline to interfere with the findings of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO without following one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law. The grievance of the revenue was that the considerationpaid…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI-400005 vs. M/S. ACC LIMITED, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…h price by the Ld TPO u/s section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. The contention of the Ld. counsel is further supported by thejudgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 (Mum). In the said case the Hon’ble HighCourt decline to interfere with the findings of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO without following one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law. The grievance of the revenue was that the considerationpaid…

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…to Rs. 26,730/- are in the nature of business income, and hence the assessee is eligible to claim deduction for the same under Section 80HHE of the Act. • In this regard, attention is invited to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Merck Ltd (389 ITR 70). In the instant case, the assessee had in the earlier previous year, revalued its assets which resulted in a loss. However, in the previous year relevant to the subject Assessment Year, the amount debited on account of re- valuation to the Profit & Loss Account in the earlier year, was reversed. Consequently, on reversal, the amount was credited…

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shir M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethyssenkrupp Industries Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(2) India Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 154-C, Mittal Towers, Room No. 609, 15Th Floor, 210, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1947K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Pratik Podar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Samuel Pitta.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…mann.com 107 4. CIT Vs. ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt Ltd., [2016] 68 taxmann.com 248 5. DCIT VS. ThyssenKrupp Industries Ltd, 6. ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt Ltd, 7. CIT Vs. SI Group-India Ltd, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 314 8. CIT Vs. Merck Ltd, [2016] 389 ITR 70 (Bom) 9. CIT Vs. Johson & Johson Ltd, [2017] 80 taxmann.com 337 Thyssenkrupp Industries Ind Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 10. CIT Vs.Lever India Exports Ltd, [2017] 78 taxmann.com 88 11. ACIT Vs. Netafim Irrigation Ind (P.) Ltd [2019] 106 taxmann.com 61 12. Henkel Chembond surface Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 125 taxmann.com 68 13. Henkel Chembond Surface Tech…

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej IT Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 PAN/GIR No. AAACK 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. CIT-14(1)(2) M/s. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej IT Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce C…

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej IT Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 PAN/GIR No. AAACK 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. CIT-14(1)(2) M/s. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej IT Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce C…

BRINKS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'BRINKS ARYA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC - 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 5462/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Brinks India Private Limited (Formerly Known As ‘Brinks Arya (India Private Limited’) Pankaj Building, 1St Floor, Unit No.102, Plot No.1, Behind Chandivali Ice Factory, Cts 46/1, Off Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Mumbai 400 072. Pan:Aaacb-3302-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 6(4), Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms.Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

…price by the Ld TPO u/s section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. The contention of the Ld. counsel is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 (Mum). In the said case the Hon'ble High Court decline to interfere with the findings of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO without following one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law. The grievance of the revenue was that the consideration pai…

BRINKS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRINKS ARYA (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

…price by the Ld TPO u/s section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. The contention of the Ld. counsel is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 (Mum). In the said case the Hon'ble High Court decline to interfere with the findings of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO without following one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law. The grievance of the revenue was that the consideration pai…