“reference to TPO”

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

provisions of Section 92B of the Act by alleging existence of an arrangement or understanding between Assessee and AES for incurring AMP expenses Reference to TPO is without jurisdiction 4. erred in making a reference to the learned TPO without recording a finding that he considers it 'necessary or expedient

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

provisions of Section 92B of the Act by alleging existence of an arrangement or understanding between Assessee and AES for incurring AMP expenses Reference to TPO is without jurisdiction 4. erred in making a reference to the learned TPO without recording a finding that he considers it 'necessary or expedient

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP, the learned AO and the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as 'TPO) have: General Ground 1. erred in determining the total taxable income of the Appellant for the subject AY at Rs 14,59,36,820 instead ... price (ALP) in respect to the international transaction of management services availed by the Appellant from its Associate Enterprise (AE") at Rs. Nil. Reference to TPO 3. erred in making a reference of the Appellant's case to the learned TPO without applying his mind and without recording its satisfaction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

year 2011–12. ITA no.4221/Mum./2017 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2011–12 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) Reference to TPO before initiating the scrutiny assessment proceedings: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the reference made by the AO under section 92CA

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

year 2011–12. ITA no.4221/Mum./2017 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2011–12 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) Reference to TPO before initiating the scrutiny assessment proceedings: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the reference made by the AO under section 92CA

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

difference between transactions price and the arm’s length price) in its return of income. 7. The Assessing Officer made reference to TPO for the determination of arm’s length price of the aforesaid international transaction. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the TPO observed that Desein

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

claimed that the international transaction of ‘Provision of Contact Centre Services’ is at arm’s length price (‘ALP’). 8. The Assessing Officer made reference to TPO for determination of ALP of the aforesaid international transaction. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

would be a specified domestic transaction for which AO is required M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; AY: 13-14 to make a reference to TPO under section 92CA of the Act for determination of the ALP. In the instant case, since the transaction exceeds the prescribed limit it becomes

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

assessee by the PCIT nor opportunity of hearing in accordance with the provisions of Sec.92CA of the Act was given before making reference to TPO. Further, a perusal of the impugned order would show that there was no application of mind by the PCIT while taking up this issue