“dispute resolution panel”

Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

determined in the draft assessment order at ₹51,67,05,479/-. Objections to the draft assessment order were filed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who gave a direction on 30th July, 2012 and based on that final assessment order was passed determining total income of the assessee ... Abbott India Ltd. vi Subsequently all the correspondences were made by Abbott India Ltd before the learned assessing officer/learned TPO and the learned dispute resolution panel. vii The objections in form number 35A was also filed by Abbott India Ltd however the assessee himself mentioned the name of the eligible

Abbott India Ltd.(Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Chaudhary, Jm Ita No. 2032/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year2009-10)

determined in the draft assessment order at ₹51,67,05,479/-. Objections to the draft assessment order were filed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who gave a direction on 30th July, 2012 and based on that final assessment order was passed determining total income of the assessee ... Abbott India Ltd. vi Subsequently all the correspondences were made by Abbott India Ltd before the learned assessing officer/learned TPO and the learned dispute resolution panel. vii The objections in form number 35A was also filed by Abbott India Ltd however the assessee himself mentioned the name of the eligible

M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

assessee has raised the following grounds before us: The Id Assessing Officer [AD], Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO"] and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in law and in fact in assessing the total income of INR 4,50,34,428 as against returned income ... assessee in Form 3CEB with its associated enterprises relevant to assessment year 2017-18. 4. The assessee has filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the variation proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order of Rs.202,60,078/- as a TP adjustment holding that the international

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

hereinafter “the Act”). 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in rejecting the application of Transactional Net Margin 3 586 & 1576/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Method (TNMM

M/S. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

hereinafter “the Act”). 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in rejecting the application of Transactional Net Margin 3 586 & 1576/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Method (TNMM

M/S. Everflow Techno Tex Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

draft assessment order dated 26.12.2019. Aggrieved by the addition proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred its objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which confirmed the action of the AO by order dated 25.03.2021. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the direction

Juniper Networks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to be withdrawn

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7755/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Juniper Networks India Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-2(4) Ltd. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Vs. Unit 103, Platina, 1St Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Plot No. C-59, G Block, Cgo Old Annexe, M. K. Bandra Kurla Complex Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj8542K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Mehta Revenue By: Shri Jayant B Jhaveri (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Ao Dated 17.10.2019 For Ay 2015-16 Pursuant To The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction On 21.08.2019. 2. The Assessee In This Case Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.174,96,10,270/-. Later On, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Referred Certain Issues To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Who Made Adjustment Of Rs.74,31,05,490/- For Software Development Services (Sds), Information Technology Enable Services (Ites) & Mark-Up On Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Espp). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee In Order To Resolve The Transfer Pricing Disputes In Respect Of Transactions With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) (I.E. M/S. Jni), It Had Approached The Competent Authorities As Per Article 27 (Map) Of The India United States Tax

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) by AO dated 17.10.2019 for AY 2015-16 pursuant to the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) direction on 21.08.2019. 2. The assessee in this case had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.174

Eclinical Works India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singheclinical Works India Pvt. Vs. Dcit-9(2)(2) Ltd., A 701 To 705, Aaykar Bhavan, Boomerang Chandivali M.K. Road, Farm Road, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 020 Studio, Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce6639F Appellant .. Respondent

file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,-- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if-- (a) the assessee ... month in which,-- (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of fling of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

DCIT CC 8(3)(Erstwhile DCIT, CC-46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-46, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

adjustment was incorporated in assessment order dated 30/05/2014. The assessee submitted that it did not want to pursue the matter before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and expressed its intention to contest the same through normal appellate channel of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment order was passed

ACIT, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Assessment Order dated 02/03/2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee thereafter filled its objections before the same Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The ld. DRP disposed the M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. objections raised by the assessee vide its directions dated 29/12/2015. 7. After ... shall and equated to limitation especially when further proceedings are contemplated under the Act such as passing draft assessment order, remedy before Dispute resolution panel and final assessment order. viii. There is no necessity or occasion to read the word "may" as "shall". Sub-sections 3A and 4 were introduced

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Assessment Order dated 02/03/2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee thereafter filled its objections before the same Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The ld. DRP disposed the M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. objections raised by the assessee vide its directions dated 29/12/2015. 7. After ... shall and equated to limitation especially when further proceedings are contemplated under the Act such as passing draft assessment order, remedy before Dispute resolution panel and final assessment order. viii. There is no necessity or occasion to read the word "may" as "shall". Sub-sections 3A and 4 were introduced