MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92C(1) by the TPO is not tenable. We notice that the TPO has computed the TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited also in the same way by 33 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

92C(1) by the TPO is not tenable. We notice that the TPO has computed the TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited also in the same way by 33 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises

MILLWARD BROWN MARKET RESEARCH SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalmillward Brown Market Research Services India Private Limited, 702,7Th Floor, Ackruti Star, Midc Central Road, Next To Marole Telephone Exchange, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 093 ..... Appellant

TDS credit and interest under section 244A of the Act, respectively, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed rectification petition before the Assessing Officer. The same is still pending for the final disposal. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed that direction may be given to Assessing Officer to dispose of the application

ACIT-11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax\nRules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of\nthe royalty payable for technical knowhow has not been carried out as\nrequired under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the\nimpugned order of the Tribunal

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.” 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS under section 40a(ia) of the Act. AO further disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A. 7. DRP vide its order under section 144C (13) sustained the draft order of AO as far as addition on account of TP Adjustment

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C of the Act. As noted above, there is no dispute regarding the selection of most appropriate method in the present case. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the TPO proposed its own set of companies as comparable and considered margin of the assessee without taking into account idle capacity adjustment as claimed by the assessee in M/s. Sitel India

JT. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD., MUMBAI

92C of the Act. As per RBI\nCircular (supra), where shares of an unlisted company are disinvested in a\nprivate arrangement, the share price should not be less than the value\ncertified by a Chartered Accountant/Certified Public Accountant based on the\nlatest Audited Financial Statement of the wholly owned subsidiary (WOS). It is\nan undisputed fact that TGBGL

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

92C of the Act r.w.r. 10B of the rules for benchmarking an international transaction. Without carrying out such exercise, the ld. TPO is not justified in determining the ALP of payment of commission to AE at Rs. Nil. 4.4. Apart from this, we find that assessee had indeed placed on record global procurement framework agreement in page

SYNGENTA BIOSCIENCES P.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Amar Pradigm, Survey No.110/113, Tax, Circle-1(3), Mumbai. Baner Road, Pune-411045 564, Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. (Pan:Aaacz0348M) Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections and well logs into CGM/SEGY/LAS formats - Third party quality control for acquisition and processing.” He then took us to P&L Account of Alphageo (India) ltd. which is given at page 210 of assessee’s paper book, wherein survey expenditure for the year is Rs.35,51,51,974/- which is a major component of expenditure out of total expenditure

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

TDS amounting to INR 11,20,299 instead of INR 11,32,678 as claimed in the return of income. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 63. erred in levying under section 234B of the Act. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 64. erred in initiating penalty under section

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, said adjustment is invalid and bad-in-law. (ii) Without prejudice to above, (i) Appellant submits that corporate guarantee given to bank for giving financial facility to AE which is (ultimate) subsidiary of the Appellant being beneficial to the Appellant (and as such

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

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

TDS credit of INR 8,60,996 claimed by the\nAppellant in the return of income of AY 2018-19.\nIncorrect levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act\n19. Erred in levying additional interest amounting to INR 1,52,106 under\nSection 234C of the Act.\nInitiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act\n20. Erred