“international transaction”

Cnh Industrial (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Cnh Industrial (Ind) Pvt. Ltd Level04, Rectangle-1, D4 Acit, Central Circle 6(3) District Center, Commercial Mumbai Vs. Complex Saket, South Delhi, Delhi 110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaci3922Q

action of the Ld. TPO/ AO in making the addition Rs. 34,33,55,268 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act to the international transaction of 'Export of tractors and parts'. 3. Erroneous rejection and selection of comparable companies 3.1 On facts and in the circumstances of the case ... income declaring total income of ₹ 1,919,680,300/–. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As assessee has entered into international transactions of export of tractors to its various associated enterprises, import of raw materials, import of capital goods, payment of royalty and provision of IT support

Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

directions of the Ld DRP erred in treating equity capital investment made in wholly owned subsidiary in the previous years as an international transaction u/s 92B(1) and recharacterising the same as a loan and calculating notional interest on such loan amounting to Rs.93,23,585/-. 3 Miranda Tools ... purchase of shares by the respondent of its subsidiary company i.e. A.E. at a price much higher than its fair market value would be international transaction as defined in Section 92(B) of the Act. The only issue before us as considered by the impugned order of the Tribunal

Dbs Bank Ltd India Branches (Now Amalgamated With Dbs Bank India Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

noticed the assessment of the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny under CASS for certain reasons, which inter alia, included “TP Risk Parameter –International Transactions”. He also noticed that the assessee has entered into several international transactions amounting to Rs.279457.28 crores. The Ld CIT(IT) further 2 DBS Bank ... dated 10-03-2016 issued by CBDT, the AO is mandatorily required to refer the matter of determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of international transactions to the Transfer pricing Officer (TPO). The Ld CIT(IT) noticed that the AO has not referred the matter of determination

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

evidence. It is well-settled that the primary onus is on the assessee to maintain documentation to demonstrate that the price charged in an international transaction complies with the ALP and the method followed to ascertain the price is the most appropriate method. The assessee discharges this onus by maintaining ... Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 7318/Mum/2019 remanded the issue back to the TPO observing as under: - “041. We failed to understand that how an international transaction of two different years, particularly in the transactions where the rendition test, benefit test, etc are required to be proved. This exercise is required

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 IR 57 (Bom), whore at was categorically held that corporate guarantee given to AE is international transactions which required to be bench marked as per TP provisions of the Act. Having said so, let us, examine what is the appropriate rate of commission ... Court in the case of M/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra), therefore, the issue is now settled and accordingly corporate guarantee given to AE for international transaction, but it cannot be bench marked by taking into account the bank guarantee commission charged by banks. Further, when it comes to the rate

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee Company. The LD CIT(A), however, deleted the addition on the ground that the provision of guarantee cannot be considered to be an international transaction as it had no impact on the profits, income or assets of the assessee company. Reliance was placed on the decision of earlier years ... profits, income, losses or assets of the assessee hence it will be outside the ambit of transfer pricing provisions as it is not an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. 211 On the other hand, the Ld DR submitted that no third-party would provide

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee Company. The LD CIT(A), however, deleted the addition on the ground that the provision of guarantee cannot be considered to be an international transaction as it had no impact on the profits, income or assets of the assessee company. Reliance was placed on the decision of earlier years ... profits, income, losses or assets of the assessee hence it will be outside the ambit of transfer pricing provisions as it is not an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. 211 On the other hand, the Ld DR submitted that no third-party would provide

Jardine Lloyd Thomposn India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions with its associated enterprise, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order wherein an adjustment of Rs.6 ... other consequential issues. TP Adjustment(Grounds 1 to 3) 4. As per the Transfer Pricing Study, the assessee has entered into the following international transactions:- Sr. Transaction Amount Method No. 1 Provision o administrative support and back 1,13,12,38,862 TNMM office services 2 Receipt of Cost Allocation

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

Rs.11,91,65,955 under Section 92C(4) of the Act to the total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (AEs) were not at arm's length: Rejection of benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant 4. erred ... contention of rejecting the CUP method applied by the Appellant as the most appropriate method, without giving cogent reasons, for benchmarking the international transactions with AEs of provision of consultancy services, Application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM') as the most appropriate method 6. erred in upholding the learned

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

units of Mutual Fund not be disallowed. 4) (a) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the appellants had not entered into any International transaction. (b) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred ... facts and in the circumstances of the case the AO ought to have held that the appellants had not entered into any international transaction falling within the scope of section 92(1) which justified the making of any addition to the appellants total income. (c) The CIT(A) ought

Shapoorji Pallonji Oil and Gas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

2434/M/2022 return of income was return of income was furher selected for scrutiny and in view of selected for scrutiny and in view of international transactions carried out by the assessee with its AEs, international transactions carried out by the assessee with its international transactions carried out by the assessee ... matter of determination of the arm’s length price of the matter of determination of the arm’s length price of the international transaction was referred to the Ld. Transfer Pricing international transaction was referred to the Ld. Transfer international transaction was referred to the Ld. Transfer Officer

Unilever India Exports Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Officer which have been complied with by the assessee by electronically submitting the details called for from time to time. Since the assessee had international transactions with its AE a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of such transactions ... determination of ALP of payment of Royalty for Central Services and determined the same at Zero (Nil) by holding that the whole value of international transaction not satisfy the ALP principle. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs.11,65,31,532/- is considered for adjustment in relation to the impugned transaction

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Officer which have been complied with by the assessee by electronically submitting the details called for from time to time. Since the assessee had international transactions with its AE a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of such transactions ... determination of ALP of payment of Royalty for Central Services and determined the same at Zero (Nil) by holding that the whole value of international transaction not satisfy the ALP principle. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs.11,65,31,532/- is considered for adjustment in relation to the impugned transaction

3I Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 15, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

interest of the Revenue and therefore, the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order directing the learned Assessing Officer to refer the international transaction of 3I Infotech Limited; A.Y. 13-14 loan given to the Associated Enterprises, M/s 3I Infotech Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius which came into existence on conversion ... Income Tax erred in passing an order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby he directed the AO to refer the international transaction of interest on loan on conversion of preference shares to the Associated Enterprise (AE) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Canvas M Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Canvas M Technologies Ltd. Acit Cir 2(3)(1) (Now Known As M/S. Tech Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mahindra Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Mumbai-400 020 Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc8665N Assessee By : Mr. Viral Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

only grievance of the Revenue is the deletion of adjustment of ₹22.67 crores on account of determination of Arm's Length Price of the international transaction. 04. The brief fact shows that the assessee was incorporated on 28 July 2006 as joint venture between Tech Mahindra Limited (‘TML’) holding ... November 2011 at a total income of ₹7,69,35,266/-. It was picked up for scrutiny. As assessee has entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises [AE] and therefore, the reference was made to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm's Length Price. The only

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and departments appeal stands dismissed

mandatory and is for the sake of internal proceedings. 32. Let us now examine the relevant procedures relating to Transfer Pricing. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA