“associated enterprises”

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

response to the statutory notices, assessee furnished various requisite details as called for. As there was international transaction between assessee and associated enterprises that exceeded the threshold limit, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arms-length price of the international transaction. The Ld. TPO after

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

inclusion of comparable adopted by ld. Transfer Pricing Officer at the time of benchmarking of the transaction undertaken by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises. 4 ITA No. 4907/Mum/2025 and CO No.276/Mum/2025 BP India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2011-12 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee ... indirect subsidiary of British Petroleum PLC (BP). Assessee primarily provides business support services to various Associated Enterprises (AEs) in the BP group. Return of income for the year was filed on 16.11.2011, reporting total income at Rs.9,46,70,392/-. Assessee had undertaken international transactions with its AEs which were

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

from the computation of income that the assessee has claimed the receipt of fabrication charges of Rs. 21,96,83,550/- from its Indian associated enterprises, namely, Owens-Corning India Pvt. Ltd. ("OCIPL"), as non- taxable in India as the assessee claims that it has neither any Permanent Establishment ... under Article 12(4)(c) of the India-Singapore DIAA since the assessee does not transfer any technical plan or design to the Indian associated enterprises. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the receipt for fabrication charges is not taxable at all in India. In support of its submission, the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

stating the reasons that there was\nno additional financial cost incurred by the assessee to provide the comfort\nletter /undertakings on behalf of its Associated Enterprises (AE). Giving further\nreasoning that the assessee bank was not actually required at any point of time\nduring the concerned year to make good

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

stating the reasons that there was\nno additional financial cost incurred by the assessee to provide the comfort\nletter /undertakings on behalf of its Associated Enterprises (AE). Giving further\nreasoning that the assessee bank was not actually required at any point of time\nduring the concerned year to make good

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

case was discussed\nduring the course of assessment proceedings.\n3.2. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had entered into\ninternational transactions with its Associate Enterprise [AE]\nexceeding the threshold limit. Reference was, therefore, made to the\nTransfer Pricing Officer [TPO] to determine the Arm's Length price ... proposed adjustment of\n*69,81,44,206/- as under:-\nSr.\nNo.\n1\nInternational\nTransaction\nValue\nExcess retention of revenues by\nthe Associated Enterprises in\nSingapore & Netherlands\nNil\nArm's Length\nPrice\n62,25,55,098\nAdjustment\n62,25,55,098\n2\nCustomization fees\n27,42,03,387\nNil

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

case was discussed\nduring the course of assessment proceedings.\n3.2. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had entered into\ninternational transactions with its Associate Enterprise [AE]\nexceeding the threshold limit. Reference was, therefore, made to the\nTransfer Pricing Officer [TPO] to determine the Arm's Length price ... under:-\nSr.\nNo.\n1\nInternational\nTransaction\nTransaction Value\nArm's Length\nPrice\nAdjustment\nExcess retention of revenues by\nthe Associated Enterprises in\nSingapore & Netherlands\nNil\n62,25,55,098\n62,25,55,098\n2\nCustomization fees\n27,42,03,387\nNil\n3,17,08,761\n3\nInterest on accounts receivable

JAGDEEP SINGH DHANOA,UNITED ARAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER IT 2(1) (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarjagdeep Singh Dhanoa Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8202, 23 Marina, Po Pox It (2)(1), Mumbai 73392, Dubai Marina Dubai 1724, 17Th Floor, Air Ar, Foreign, India Building, United Arab Emirates- Nariman Point, 73392 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadpd4843R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 26.04.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) (1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Adjustment of INR 2,63,12,929 to the total income of the Appellant in respect of notional interest on loan granted to Associated Enterprises ('AE's') in India: 1.1 The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (DRP) erred in upholding the adjustment of INR 2,63,12,929 made

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

said jewellery manufacturing unit has entered into transaction of purchase of cut and polished diamond from its own diamond division i.e. its own associated enterprises (AE) and secondly from others which are non- associated enterprises. As the assessee is claiming deduction under section ITA No. 4329/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 270/Mum/2025

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

owned subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited and is engaged in manufacturing Fast Moving Consumer Goods products. The assessee operates in two segments. In the Associated Enterprise segment, it acts as a contract manufacturer and exports finished goods to its group companies under inter-company supply agreements, earning a pre-agreed ... mark-up of 9.16 percent on cost. In the non-Associated Enterprise segment, it manufactures and sells products to unrelated parties on an entrepreneurial basis. This functional profile and remuneration model are recorded in the fact sheet forming part of the paper book. 4. For ready reference, the basic factual

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

rejected the audited segmental accounts\nof the assessee and re-casted the segmental results by assuming\na fixed return of 9.16 percent on the Associated Enterprise cost\nbase and attributing the residual profits to the non-Associated\nEnterprise segment. Internal Transactional Net Margin Method\n(Internal TNMM) was adopted ... making a transfer pricing addition of Rs.\n154,36,00,000 concerning the international transaction of export of\ngoods?\nExport of finished goods to Associated Enterprises:\n2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, orders passed by the learned TPO dated 30 April