“directions of the DRP”

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 37(1) 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the T.P. Adjustment was reduced to Rs. 3,39,48,928/-. The DRP with regard to the other additions made by Varian Medical Systems International (India ... finance cost disallowed to the extent of Rs. 9,06,801/-. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard to the following issues: Issue

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

assessment order which had been passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act in conformity with the directions of the DRP. The said proposition is supported by Order of the Tribunal in the case of Barclays Bank Pic v. CIT(IT). b. That the said

Fulford (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.338/मुं/2014(िन.व.2009-10) Fulford (India) Limited, Platina Building, 8Th Floor, C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aaacf-1795-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate With Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr & Shri Ujjwal Kumar Chavan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 13/12/2013 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are: The Assessee/Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Pharmaceutical Products In 2 India. The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Of Schering-Plough Corporation, Usa. During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into Various International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprise(Ae). During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Made Adjustment In Respect Of Following International Transactions: Sl.No. Description Of International Transaction Adjustment Made By Tpo (Amount In Rs.) 1. Import Of Active Pharmaceutical 4,81,96,325 Ingredients (Apis) 2 Import Of Finished Drug Formulations (Fdf) 15,75,53,000 Total 20,57,49,325

most appropriate method before the Tribunal 9. Per contra, Dr. Yogesh Kamat representing the Department vehemently supported the order of TPO and the directions of the DRP. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee has changed its stand in the proceedings before the TPO to re-characterize its transactions

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

debts written back during the year was offered to tax in the return of income. Since, the order of A.O was received post directions of the DRP, the issue has been raised before the Tribunal. He submitted that the issue is covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee ... Subsequently, the A.O in rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 21/04/2011 allowed interest of Rs.13,03,17,397/-. Subsequent to direction of the DRP, the AO again modified the interest amount vide order passed u/s. 154 dated 15/04/2013 to Rs.12,20,33,651/-. Thus, the assessee

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

under: 5. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to paragraph 28 of the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel as under:- “28. Directions of the DRP 28.1 We have considered the submissions of the Assessee. The order of the ITAT is binding on all the lower authorities. We have

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.932 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 12 Grounds. Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset

same were deleted by the DRP in the respective Assessment Years. The ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the directions of the DRP for Assessment Year 2011-12 at page 315, for Assessment Year 2013-14 at page 348 and for Assessment Year 2014-15 at page ... same AEs as was made in the preceding Assessment Years. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently defended the assessment order and e directions of the DRP. However, he fairly stated that the issue is similar to the one raised in the impugned assessment year has been considered by the Tribunal

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.7400 /मुं/2017 (िन.व. 2013-14) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr. Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 /01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30/10/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Ten Grounds Of Appeal. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal Vide Application Dated 26/10/2023. 3. The Ground No.1 Of Appeal Is General In Nature, Hence, Require No Separate Adjudication.

vehemently opposed admission of additional grounds of appeal at this belated stage. The ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the assessment order and the directions of the DRP on merits of the disallowance/additions. 13. Both sides heard. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal in respect of suo-moto disallowance

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

Revenue vide order dated 29/11/2019 for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08(supra). 11. The ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the directions of the DRP and the assessment order. 8 12. Both sides heard. We find that in Assessment Year 2006-07 prior period expenses were allowed ... Assessment Year 2006-07 (supra). The facts are identical in impugned assessment year. 14. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the assessment order and directions of the DRP. However, he fairly admitted that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2006-07. 15. Both sides heard

Asst CIT RG 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crisil Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the issue under

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

assessee, Ld. DRP upheld the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and affirmed the Transfer Pricing addition. 13. Aggrieved with the above directions of Ld. DRP, assessee is in appeal before us. 14. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts relating ... therefore, direct that these two entities be excluded from the list of 10 comparables finally taken by the AO/TPO as per the direction of the DRP (emphasis supplied) 4.9. The said decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal has also been followed in the case of Goldman Sachs Services

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessee, Ld. DRP upheld the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and affirmed the Transfer Pricing addition. 13. Aggrieved with the above directions of Ld. DRP, assessee is in appeal before us. 14. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts relating ... therefore, direct that these two entities be excluded from the list of 10 comparables finally taken by the AO/TPO as per the direction of the DRP (emphasis supplied) 4.9. The said decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal has also been followed in the case of Goldman Sachs Services

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessee, Ld. DRP upheld the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and affirmed the Transfer Pricing addition. 13. Aggrieved with the above directions of Ld. DRP, assessee is in appeal before us. 14. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts relating ... therefore, direct that these two entities be excluded from the list of 10 comparables finally taken by the AO/TPO as per the direction of the DRP (emphasis supplied) 4.9. The said decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal has also been followed in the case of Goldman Sachs Services

Crisil Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessee, Ld. DRP upheld the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and affirmed the Transfer Pricing addition. 13. Aggrieved with the above directions of Ld. DRP, assessee is in appeal before us. 14. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts relating ... therefore, direct that these two entities be excluded from the list of 10 comparables finally taken by the AO/TPO as per the direction of the DRP (emphasis supplied) 4.9. The said decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal has also been followed in the case of Goldman Sachs Services