“dispute resolution panel”

Michael Page International Recruitment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

which we will take up together, the assessee-appellant has raised the following grievances: Ground 1: Final assessment order and Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP) directions passed without application of mind Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 11 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') incorporating the directions dated March 23, 2021 passed by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel DRP, is without application of mind as they have adjudicated on objections pertaining to a different taxpayer and is therefore invalid, bad-in-law and deserves to be quashed. The Appellant prays

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Disputes Resolution Panel-2, [In short I.T.A. No. 1224/Mum/2021 2 Assessment Year: 2016-17 “DRP”] dated 26.02.2021 passed under section 144C(5) of the Income ... international transaction relating to export of goods 1 : 1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 20,00,44,7047 - to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating

Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd. Tax, Tower Vi, Iv Floor, Solitaire Central Circle 8(1), Corporate Park, Chakala, Vs. Andheri (E) Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf4252A Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ('AO') grossly erred, based on the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd; A.Y. 06-07 1961 (the Act). in making the upward ... computed the total income at ₹8,35,34,980/-. Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd; A.Y. 06-07 05. Assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, [ the Ld DRP] who passed its directions on 6th August, 2010, wherein certain comparables were directed to be included. Consequently, the assessment order

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Specialties Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2056/Mum./2016 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer / Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) (as the case may be) erred in – 1.1 Passing the order U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income ... considering the papers and documents submitted as also submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings and the proceedings before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel. 1.2 Passing the impugned order which is illegal and bad in law and consequently, null and void. 2. Transfer Pricing Issues: On the facts

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

International Taxation) 2(1)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessing Officer') in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the "DRP”) on the following grounds which are without prejudice to one another. 1. Ground No.1 - Income earned by Appellant ... assessee as fee for technical services under the provisions of the DTAA. 5. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’). Vide directions dated 28/12/2021 issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, the learned DRP following its directions rendered in assessee’s own case

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - Ccc- 7(2)`, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

know-how included incorrectly in the adjustment in respect of transaction for payment of brand royalty of anchor. In this regard before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) the assessee submitted that the transaction of payment of royalty of brand name amounting to Rs.32,06,84,684/- inadvertently included royalty ... adjustment was made on payment of royalty for technical knowhow. The ld. Counsel also submitted that during the course of hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel the DRP was of the view that existing record was not sufficient to consider the claim of the assessee regarding incorrect proportionate adjustment

Infiniti Wholesale Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As Woolwonths Wholesale (India) P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

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

against returned loss of (Rs. 18,87,50,293) based on the directions received from Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") partially upholding the adjustment to the transfer price proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ( Ld TPO"). 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 [or section 153A or section 153C] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order;] (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

M/S Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As Ims Ag, Switzerland vs. The DCIT (Intl Tax) 2(2) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Iqvia Ag Dcit (It) – 2(2)(2) V. (Previously Known As Ims Ag) 16Th Floor, Air India Building C/O. Iqvia Consulting & Nariman Point Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 Unit No. 902, 9Th Floor Supreme Business Park Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aacci5872K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Ms. Bharati Singh

taxable as Royalty and considered as income for this assessment year. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel and Ld. DRP decided the issue against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “Ground No. 1- Non-taxable business income ... Treaty (Tax Treaty") 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in concluding that the Subscription Income received by the Appellant for providing access to its online database of statistically compiled pharmaceutical data collected

B Braun Medical (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -1(2) (1), Mumbai

passed under section 144C(2) of the Income-Tax Act. The assessee filed its objection to the proposed additions/disallowance with the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 Mumbai (the ‘DRP’) on 20-04-2021. After receipt of direction from Ld. DRP, the AO passed final assessment order dated 28-01-2022 under

Novell Inc, America vs. DCIT (It) Range 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us.

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] for the Assessment Year 2014-15, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.09.2018. This appeal was disposed off vide order, dated

Dy CIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

years. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee had also moved with the DRP a rectification application u/rule 13 of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 r.w sec. 144C(5) of the Act, dated 11-1-2017, seeking a direction for carry forward of the b/forward Long term ... capital losses. After considering the issue, the DRP vide its order passed u/rule 13 of the Income- tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, dated 01-12-2017, had concluded, that following the rationale adopted for allowing the carry forward of brought forward STCL, the Long term capital losses amounting

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

final assessement order dated 30/01/2015 passed by the Assessing Officer 2 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C (5) of the income tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment year 2010-11. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee