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

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

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

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

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

OOCL LOGISTICS (INDIA ). P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C(2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price for the international transactions. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (AC has erred in adding the adjustment under provisions of Chapter X of the Act while calculating the book profit under Section 115JB

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. (ASOL) AS A SUCCESSOR TO ACCENTURE SERIVCES PVT LTD (ASPL),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 14 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 16. Erred in allowing royalty payment at an ad hoc rate of 1% only for use of brand name and trademark: disregarding the fact that the royalty paid by the Appellant is for the entire portfolio of IP which also includes tools, technology, methodology

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

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

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

92C(1) states that “ALP in relation to an “”international transaction could be determined by any of the methods provided in the said sub-section which is “most appropriate” having regard to the nature of transactions or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant facts which may be prescribed

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

92C(1) states that “ALP in relation to an “”international transaction could be determined by any of the methods provided in the said sub-section which is “most appropriate” having regard to the nature of transactions or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant facts which may be prescribed

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

92C of the Act cannot be sustained.\"\n57. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that TPO, as well\nas learned DRP, were not justified in treating the value of the international\ntransaction of reimbursement of expenses to be NIL, in the present case.\nAccordingly, ground no.12 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed