“international transaction”

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mckinsey & Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

Return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Assessee is a foreign incorporated in Singapore. Assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated concerns i.e. McKinsey & Co., Inc. (India Branch) during the financial year relevant for assessment year under consideration and filed transfer pricing audit report in Form 3CEB

Gammon India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

account of Hire Charges on Machineries provided to the JV, as the said transactions did not fall within the purview of "international transactions" and that the provisions of Transfer Pricing as contained in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") were not applicable to the said transactions ... S.p.A... Sadelmi, Campo Puma Oriente, @ 0.50%, without appreciating the Appellant's contention that such transactions do not fall within the purview of the term "International Transaction" as defined in Section 92B(1) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 retrospectively with effect 1st April 2002 by insertion

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

account of Hire Charges on Machineries provided to the JV, as the said transactions did not fall within the purview of "international transactions" and that the provisions of Transfer Pricing as contained in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") were not applicable to the said transactions ... S.p.A... Sadelmi, Campo Puma Oriente, @ 0.50%, without appreciating the Appellant's contention that such transactions do not fall within the purview of the term "International Transaction" as defined in Section 92B(1) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 retrospectively with effect 1st April 2002 by insertion

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

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

method. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method and the companies selected by the assessee as comparables to benchmark international transactions. The assessee had made certain adjustments to arrive at Operating Margin ratio of 1.03%. The various adjustments made by the assessee were in respect ... applying operating margin @4.21%. This resulted in upward adjustment of Rs.23.60 crores (Rs. 76.24crores – Rs.52.63 crores) Since, the value of international transaction was Rs.7.43 crores only, the TPO restricted the adjustment to Rs.2.30 cores, attributing to AE expenses in proportion to AE and non-AE expenses. The adjustment made

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

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

method. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method and the companies selected by the assessee as comparables to benchmark international transactions. The assessee had made certain adjustments to arrive at Operating Margin ratio of 1.03%. The various adjustments made by the assessee were in respect ... applying operating margin @4.21%. This resulted in upward adjustment of Rs.23.60 crores (Rs. 76.24crores – Rs.52.63 crores) Since, the value of international transaction was Rs.7.43 crores only, the TPO restricted the adjustment to Rs.2.30 cores, attributing to AE expenses in proportion to AE and non-AE expenses. The adjustment made

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee. A reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was made in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transaction, the assessee is having with its 4 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO, vide order dated 31/10/2016 proposed ... incurred for marketing assessee‟s own products and the payment was made to third parties in India. Therefore, it is outside the purview of international transaction as defined under section 92B of the ACT. As could be seen, the Transfer Pricing Officer ignoring the submissions made by the assessee

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the arm’s length price from the international transaction detailed in the audit report in form 3CEB. The TPO, vide order dated 29/01/2013 made an 3 ITA 792/Mum/2014 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd adjustment

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO, in short) in order to compute the arm‟s length price of the international transactions, the assessee had with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO made an overall TP adjustment of Rs.1945.16 crores towards provision of software, technical & consultancy

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

assessee. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO, in short) in order to compute the arm‟s length price of the international transactions, the assessee had with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO made an overall TP adjustment of Rs.1945.16 crores towards provision of software, technical & consultancy

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blekec International Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 5(2)(1) 463 Rpg House Room No. 571, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aacck5599H (Appellant) (Respondent)

case and in law, the DRP erred in confirming the action of the TPO/AO in holding that issuance of corporate guarantee is an 'international transaction' and consequently, transfer pricing addition of Rs. 13,97,23,463/- should be made at the rate of 1.16% of the guarantee amount. 2.2. They ... failed to appreciate and ought to have held that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction". 2.3. The Appellant prays that the TPO/AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee. 2.4. Without prejudice to the above, the rate of corporate guarantee

Kkr India Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Circle -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kkr India Advisors Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited 2Nd Floor, Piramal Tower, Tax, Circle 6 515, Aaykar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Maharshi Karve Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5826G

assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 13 December 2016 was also passed without any T P Adjustments on ALP of International Transactions. 04. The learned PCIT on examination of the record found that assessee was involved in charging lower advisory fees from the related parties. Further ... assessee also submitted that pursuant to the order under Section 263 of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer on 26 June 2019 referred the international transaction to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer with direction of the learned PCIT. Consequent to that, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order under

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the income tax act 12. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the arithmetic mean of internal comparable rates of guarantee commission ... associated enterprises 14. the AO/TPO erred in holding that the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises constituted an international transaction under section 90 2B of the income tax act 15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the income tax act 12. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the arithmetic mean of internal comparable rates of guarantee commission ... associated enterprises 14. the AO/TPO erred in holding that the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises constituted an international transaction under section 90 2B of the income tax act 15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

AO/TPO erred in holding that the financial guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises pg. 4 constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the income tax act 12. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the arithmetic mean of internal comparable rates of guarantee commission ... associated enterprises 14. the AO/TPO erred in holding that the performance guarantees given by the appellant on behalf of its associated enterprises constituted an international transaction under section 90 2B of the income tax act 15. without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in rejecting the appellant‟s contention that having regard

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Associated Enterprises 14) The AO/TPO erred in holding that the performance guarantees given by the Appellant on behalf of its Associated Enterprises constitute "international transaction" under Section 92B of the Act. 15) Without prejudice, the AO/ TPO erred in rejecting the Appellant's contention that having regard to the facts ... 29/9/2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,040,312,390. It was picked up for scrutiny. 05. As assessee has entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, the learned assessing officer referred to the learned transfer-pricing officer for examination of the arm‟s-length price. The learned transfer