RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92C(2) of the Act. The working capital adjusted margins of the comparables, the arithmetic mean, the assessee's margin, and the tolerance limit are reproduced hereunder. Comparable Working Capital Adjusted NCP margin (%) Sonata Information Technology Limited 2.20% Dynacons Technologies Limited -1.53% Virtual Galaxy Inftech Private Limited 4.21% Arm's length arithmetic mean 1.626% Assessee's margin 1.40% Tolerance

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

TDS credit. The assessee is IT enabled and BPO service provider and has shown income of Rs.86,36,70,289/- from the said business during the year. Further, the assessee has shown interest income of Rs.15,11,64,039/- as „income from other sources‟. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s.143

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92C, 92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more associated\nenterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of\npurchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

TDS of Rs.33,83,093 as against Rs.43,83,437 (as per\nForm 26AS) claimed by the Appellant, thereby there is a short tax credit of\nTDS of Rs.10,00,344.\n14. Ground 14A - Penalty proceedings\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT\nerred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

3 percent variation as per the proviso to the Section 92C(2) of the Act. Ground No.3 - Adjustment in respect of interest paid on Structured Loan Interest on Structured Loan 7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in determining the arm's length

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

92C, 92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more associated\nenterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of\npurchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

92C(3) of the Act and has failed to record his satisfaction before making\nthe reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)\n2.1.1 b) The Id. TPO failed to prove that any of the conditions laid down in section\n92C(3) of the Act had been satisfied which made out a case for tax evasion.\n2.1.2 The Id. AO/TPO failed

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

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

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

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

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

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

92C, 92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

92C, 92D and 92E,\n\"international transaction\" means a transaction between two or more\nassociated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature\nof purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of\nservices, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a\nbearing on the profits, income, losses or assets

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

3) of the Act.\n13. Without prejudice, failed in adopting a scientific approach in conformity\nwith the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for identifying a\ncomparable interest rate for the alleged excessive payment of INR 100\nCrores and CCDs.\n14. Without prejudice, erred in not following/ incorrectly following any of the\nmethods prescribed under Section 92C