“advance pricing agreement”

Bridgestone India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delh, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring a total income of ₹ 441,696,759/– which has been further revised on account of signing of Advance Pricing Agreement on 26/2/2019 declaring an income of ₹ 840,844,813. This return of income was picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed

Unilever Industries Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

respect of transfer pricing adjustment issues and the assessee has filed a dated 21.06.2022 intimating the Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. conclusion of Advance Pricing Agreement(APA) and withdrawal of Grounds of appeal in case of transfer pricing adjustment, and the ground of appeal no.8 is not pressed

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

learned Authorized Representative also submitted a letter dated 26th May, 2021, wherein it was submitted that assessee has entered into an advance pricing agreement on 17th March, 2021 and A.Y. 2016-17 is covered under the same Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) provisions. It was further stated that assessee filed modified

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

erred in notincorporating the directions of the Hon'ble DRP of adopting the interest rate of Libor + 100 basispoints, as agreed under the advance pricing agreement signed by the Appellant, to impute interest on the alleged excessive payment for the transaction of purchase of equity shares treated as a deemed

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

return of income under section 92CD of the Act on 17/08/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 533,97,84,190 pursuant to Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement dated 31/05/2018. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In respect

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

decision of the coordinate bench of Tribunal for preceding assessment years. In all fairness, learned AR submitted that in preceding assessment years Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) was entered by the Indian subsidiary of the assessee company, which covered the transactions with assessee. However, the year under consideration is not covered

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT (International Taxationa)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Tribunal rendered in assessee‟s own case for preceding assessment years. The learned AR further submitted that the transition is as per Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) and therefore no further adjustment is required. 21. On the other hand, learned DR vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities ... remunerated at arm's length, it cannot be considered as agency P.E. of the assessee. It is further relevant to observe, in the advance pricing agreement between the CMA CGM Agencies India Pvt. Ltd and CBDT entered on 24th November 2015, it has been agreed that remuneration @ 18% between

Aker Powergas P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

DCIT / DRP has erred in not understanding the contention of the appellant for submission of the documents by the appellant as per the Advance Pricing Agreement ('APA') entered into by the appellant with the Central Board of Direct Taxes CCBDT'). 1.4 The learned DCIT / DRP has erred in rejecting Transactional ... very outset, the Ld. A.R. for the tax payer contended that he has raised a specific ground before Ld. DRP that though Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) signed between the tax payer and Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) pertains to the subsequent financial years, it has a persuasive value

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT, (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Establishment and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further pointed that a perusal of the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) at page 117 of the paper book would show that the transaction is at arm’s length, therefore, Indian entity cannot be held ... remunerated at arm’s length, it cannot be considered as agency PE of the assessee. It is further relevant to observe, in the advance pricing agreement between the CMA CGM Agencies India Pvt. Ltd. and CBDT entered on 24th November 2015, it has been agreed that remuneration @ 18% between

Polycom Technology Centre, Delhi vs. Nationa E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

decision of the Assessing Officer in making addition towards transfer pricing adjustment as suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer, disregarding the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered by the assessee with the CBDT covering the year under consideration. 3. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business ... assessee objected to the addition by filing the objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel. In the meantime, the assessee entered into Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the CBDT, which covered year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee intimated to the learned DRP about the APA entered by it. Hence