Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ΙΤΑ No.988/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited ITO - 15(3)(1), Mumbai 403-404, B Wing, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400076. (Appellant) Vs. (Respondent) PAN: AAВСТ 3207 A Present for: Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri Dhanesh Bafna Shri Dhivya Ruth J, Sr. DR 10.06.2024 28.08.2024 ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee for the asses…

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 55, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…lant appearing before us submitted that Ground No. 16 & 17 raised by the Appellant stands decided in favour of the Appellant, inter alia, by following the judgments/decisions: - Pfizer Healthcare India Private Ltd Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax: (2021) 433 ITR 28 (Madras) - DCIT vs. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd.: 444 ITR 636 (Madras) - Atos India Private Limited Vs. DCIT [ITA No. 1795/Mum/2017, dated 23/02/2023, Assessment Year 2012-13], - Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [ITA No. 1492/Mum/2015, dated 14/11/2022]. - Bristol-Myers Squibb India Private Limited [Assessment Year 2016-17] ITA No.…

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

…s than sixty days, and accordingly, the order passed by learned TPO is time barred and bad in law and needs to be quashed. In support reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd., reported in 433 ITR 28(Madras) wherein heavy reliance was placed on the following paragraph:- “30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31st of December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time a…

ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD (SUCESSOR TO HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -4(2) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised in ground No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1488/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2016-17) Zydus Wellness Products Limited (Successor To Heinz India Private Limited) Unit Nos. 1901 & 1902, 19Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Expressway Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaach-0667-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…ber 2019. Date of passing the TP order under Section 92CA(3) 01-Nov-19. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. ITO, 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi); (ii) Pfizer Healthcare India (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT, 433 ITR 28(Madras); (iii) Transporter Industry International Gmbh vs. DCIT(IT) ITA No.1240/Mum/2021 decided on 31/05/2023; (iv) LG Soft India Private Limited vs. DCIT, [IT(TP)A No. 263/Bang/2022 decided on 30/05/2023(Bang). The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that, since the order passed by the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, t…

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC/ DCIT 8(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…pt for hearing today i.e. 17.10.2023, the appellant had raised an additional ground with respect order of TPO being barred by limitation. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd Vs JCIT [433 ITR 28] Madras and Division Bench decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of DCIT Vs Saint Gobain India (P) Ltd [444 ITR 636 (Madras)]. The additional ground raised by the appellant is not acceptable and should not be allowed. In this regard the undersigned has following submission. 5 ITA 588/Mum/2022 Siemens Technology & Services Ltd 3. It is sub…

SIEMENS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE, DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,8(2)(1) , DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…before us. 8. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the issue raised vide additional ground is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited v/s JCIT, [2021] 433 ITR 28 (Mad.). The learned AR submitted that in the present case, the due date for passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act expired on 31/10/2019, however, the TPO passed the order on 01/11/2019. Therefore, the same is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. The learned AR further submitted that since the TPO’s order is barred by limita…

SIEMENS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…before us. 8. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the issue raised vide additional ground is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited v/s JCIT, [2021] 433 ITR 28 (Mad.). The learned AR submitted that in the present case, the due date for passing the order under section 92CA(3) of the Act expired on 31/10/2019, however, the TPO passed the order on 01/11/2019. Therefore, the same is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. The learned AR further submitted that since the TPO’s order is barred by limita…

FROST & SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Frost & Sullivan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income Tax, 4th Floor, Tower VI, Circle – 9(3)(2) Solitaire Corporate Park Mumbai Opp. Sahar Cargo Complex, Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No.AAACF4252A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Frost & Sullivan (India) Income Tax, Private Limited Circle – 9(3)(2) 4th Floor, Tower VI, Solitaire Mumbai Corporate Park Opp. Sahar Cargo Complex, Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 093 PA…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FROST AND SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Frost & Sullivan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income Tax, 4th Floor, Tower VI, Circle – 9(3)(2) Solitaire Corporate Park Mumbai Opp. Sahar Cargo Complex, Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No.AAACF4252A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Frost & Sullivan (India) Income Tax, Private Limited Circle – 9(3)(2) 4th Floor, Tower VI, Solitaire Mumbai Corporate Park Opp. Sahar Cargo Complex, Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 093 PA…

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS P LTD (ASOL),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI & THE DY CIT,CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

…P a g e | 1 Accenture Solutions Private Limited Vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Accenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘ASOL’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACH3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Nishant Thak…

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

…eing barred by limitation. 3. In support of the said additional ground, assessee has also filed chronology of events as well as relied heavily upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2021) 433 ITR 28 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Atos India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1795/Mum/2017. Apart from that, Ld Counsel also submitted that in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2009-10, this Tribunal vide order dated 14/11/2022 on similar grounds and facts have not only quashed M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. the transf…

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

…eing barred by limitation. 3. In support of the said additional ground, assessee has also filed chronology of events as well as relied heavily upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2021) 433 ITR 28 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Atos India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1795/Mum/2017. Apart from that, Ld Counsel also submitted that in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2009-10, this Tribunal vide order dated 14/11/2022 on similar grounds and facts have not only quashed M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. the transf…

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…lt in on similar issues, which are as under:- 14. He further submitted that the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited vs. JCIT/ Dy. CIT (Writ Petition No.32699 of 2019) [2021] 124 taxmann.com 536 (Madras)/[2021] 433 ITR 28 (Madras) has allowed the writ petition filed and has accepted the Assessee's contention that the order of the TPO passed during the 60 days period prior to the due date of completion of assessment is barred by limitation under section 92CA(3A) r.w.s. 153(1) of the Act and therefore the said order is to be quashed. The relevant extracts of the deci…

DHL LOGISTICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

…P a g e | 1 DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-assessment Centre IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DHL Logistics Private Vs. National e-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National e- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACM6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent by…

TRANSPORTER INDUSTRY INTERNATINAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

…by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court (DB) in the case of M/s. Saint Gobain 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Transporter Industry International India (P) Ltd. (444 ITR 636) (Mad) and the decision in the case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) (433 ITR 28) (Mad). 4. First of all we will deal with the legal issue which has been raised by the assessee company challenging the action of the TPO to have passed the TP order, after the limitation time prescribed in section 92(3A) r.w.s. 153 of the Act. Drawing our attention to the following chart placed below, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Nikhil Tiwari…

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

…P a g e | 1 Willis Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, CC-8(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Willis Towers Watson Vs. The DCIT Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (f orm erly k nown as T ower s Wat s on I nd ia Pv t.L td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : Manoj Kumar Date of He…