“international transaction”

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO of determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction of purchase of equity shares of SIPL and QNPL at INR 2,155,06 and INR 10,013.45 respectively. In doing so, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Ld, DRP erred ... under the provisions of section 5 read with section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') g) Determining the ALP of the international transaction of purchase of equity shares without cognizance to the provisions of Section 92C(3) of the Act. 2. Ground No. 2: TP adjustment

Jiostar India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

adopted by the predecessor Bench in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2014-15 on the benchmarking of the international transaction of `Purchase of Bundle of Sport Broadcasting Rights’. Albeit, no question has been referred for consideration, the Special Bench, after taking into consideration ... parties to the same: - “Whether on facts and in law, the Assessing Officer was justified in making transfer pricing adjustment anent to the international transaction of acquiring Bundle of Sport Broadcasting Rights, on the basis of deficiencies found by him in the valuation report submitted by the assessee

L & T Mhps Boilers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm L & T Mhps Boilers Private Limited Acit-2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, L & T House, Mumbai Vs. N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl 2635 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) &

selected for scrutiny and the same was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO' for short) for determination of arm’s length price as the international transaction of the assessee company exceeded Rs.15 crores. The ld. TPO held that the assessee’s international transaction was at arm’s length price ... therefore, no adjustment was made to the value of the international transaction. The Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) Rs.(- )83,06,56,513/- by disallowing the provision for foreseeable losses amounting to Rs.5,82,61,335/-. 3. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the order

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

selected for 2 Lintas India Private Limited scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transaction with its Associated Enterprises (AEs), a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm’s length price ... international transaction. The TPO made TP adjustment of Rs.13,15,77,403/-. A draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer incorporating the TP adjustments. Besides the above, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.4,98,556/- as the income towards the un-reconciled amount between books

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

performance guarantee provided to third party Le. Bahwan Engineering Company LLC on behalf of its AE ie. KEC Global FZ LLC was not an international transaction without appreciating the fact that the transaction was of nature of tripartite agreement and the AE get benefited from the performance guarantee provided ... performance guarantee provided to third party ie. Bahwan Engineering Company LLC on behalf of its AE ie. KEC Global FZ LLC was not an international transaction without appreciating the fact that the TPO has determined the benefits of the AE as ALP. vii. On the facts and circumstances

Firefly Market Research India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

particular product by application of knowledge from fields such as sociology, psychology etc. 3. During the year under consideration the assessee entered into international transaction with Associate Enterprises (AEs). The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee proposed adjustment on account ... arms length price (ALP) qua the international transactions of availing support services and cost allocation with its AEs to the tune of Rs.1,41,63,877/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. DRP by way of filing objection who has rejected the same. The Assessing Officer

Transporter Industry Internatinal Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT International Taxation, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

Subsequently, a reference was made by the second appellant to the first appellant for determining the arm's length price of the international transactions reported in Form No. 3CEB. On 10-12-2018, a notice under section 92CA(2) of the Act was issued by the first appellant calling upon ... submitted that the assessee had shown in its Form no. 3CEB (report furnished u/s 92E of the Act relating to the International transaction and specified domestic transaction) wherein at item no. 19, the description of the transaction i.e. registration expenses for Patent and Trademark is reflected i.e. the amount paid

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In view of the international transactions carried out by the with. In view of the international transactions carried out by the with. In view of the international transactions carried

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avana Integrated Systems Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Avana Integrated 1(1)(1), Systems Ltd., Room No.579, Vs. Bombay House, Aayakar Bhavan, 24, Homi Mody Street, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadct 1062F (Appellant) (Respondent)

satisfying himself about the necessity and requirement of referring the matter for determination of arm's length price in respect of the international transaction between the appellant and the AEs and consequently the reference by the Learned AO to the Leamed TPO is illegal and bad in law; 1.3 making ... comparable companies have to be re-worked, then- (a) the AO should be directed to accept the arm's length price of the international transactions with the AEA if the revised operating margin of the appellant is greater than or is within the 5% variation (tolerance band") of the revised

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

Resolution Panel – III, Mumbai [“DRP”], erred in making addition of Rs. 2,72,430/- by way of adjustment to the transfer price of the international transaction entered in to by the appellant with its associated enterprise by invoking the provisions of Section 92CA ... Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted 5. that the Appellant has entered into the international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“in short TPO”) under Section 92CA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. India Debt Management Private Limited, Mumbai

overall average rate of interest of 11.77% during the year without appreciating that each series of debentures issued in different years was separate international transaction and each transaction was required to be benchmarked separately". (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case ... case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) under Section