M/S. MAHINDRA HOMES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

TP provisions and secondly while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, Short granting of credit of TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 49,10,597/- 34. Erred in short granting of credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TP study report. The assessee considered itself as a tested party. Since, the commission rate charged at 1.10% was less than arithmetic mean of four comparables rate of 3.63%, the assessee concluded that this transaction was at arm‟s length. M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited 4.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. TPO requested the assessee

PORTESCAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

method. 5.3 Disregarding the TP study maintained by the Appellant in good faith and with due diligence 5-4 Not appreciating the detailed submission and documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant to substantiate the receipt of services. 5.5 Inappropriately questioning the commercial wisdom of the Appellant for payment towards availing these services, thereby ignoring the principal that

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

TP Study Report. The assessee contended that all three enterprises reported in form 3CEB will not fall under the preview of AEs as per Section 92A of the Act. The assessee further contended that as per Section 92A(2)(c) of the Act, only Credit Opportunities II PTE Limited shall be deemed to be an Associated Enterprise

JOHNSON CONTROLS (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhi.T.A. No.8722/M/2010 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) I.T.A. No.8855/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Johnson Controls (India) Dcit-8(2), Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 501-502, Prime Corporate M.K. Road, Mumbai – 40020. Park, Near Itc Grand Maratha, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 099. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacj3132B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Rupinder Brar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Involving The Ays 2006-07 & 2007-2008. Since, The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Either Identical Or Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed, Heard Combinedly & Disposed Of In This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs Of This Order. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 14.12.2010 Against The Orders Of The Drp / Tpo / Ao. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised Four Grounds In Toto. 3. Ground No.1 Relates To The Transfer Pricing Issue. In This Ground, The Issue Needs To Be Adjudicated Is Whether The Profit Split Method (Psm) Is The Most „Appropriate Method‟ When Data Is Not Available On The Cup Method As Most

TP adjustment and eventually resorted to ad-hoc adjustment without assigning any basis. TPO‟s conclusion of splitting the relatable profit of 10%, AE maintained gross margin of 16%. However, the DRP did not accept the decision of the TPO. Finally, DRP concluded that “keeping in view the detailed facts of the case and also the PSM method in view

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

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

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

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

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

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

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.

TP adjustments. The first thing is to find out whether the disputed transaction in is IT or not.Without crossing the first threshold second cannot be approached,as stated earlier.In the case under consideration,we are of the opinion that AMP expenditure is not an IT and therefore we are not inclined to restore back the issue to the file

DIMENSION DATA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं. / It(Tp)A No.1155/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dimension Data India Limited Addl. Cit Unit No.204-206, 2Nd Floor Range No.551, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Trade Centre Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Kamala Mills Compound Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-2145-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Dr

TP adjustment will be revised to Rs.76,21,785/-. The appellant has not yet received the rectified order as on the date of filing of the appeal. 1.12 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above stated ground of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the reference

NIVEA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

TP issues. Grounds no.21-22,for the AY.2007-08,are about disallowance of TV cost/cost of production films, amounting to Rs. 22.67 crores.During the assessment proceedings,the AO treated the same as capital in nature.He held that TV films and commercials had a lifespan of a number of years,that both the items and the commercials had a long impact

SAS INSTITUTE (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

TDS at Rs 4,14,68,631 instead of Rs 5,19,22,837 and consequentially erroneously levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 11. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, even if the transfer pricing adjustment is sustained, the learned AO has erred in levying

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)

method adopted by the assessee, verify the TP study alongwith the comparability study conducted by the assessee and accordingly determine the ALP. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 10. With regard to Ground No. 4 which is relating to payment for availing professional services, brief facts relating to the ground

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

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

TP and the learned DRP in support of the transfer pricing adjustment proposed to the income of the assessee and prayed before the Bench that the order of the DRP may kindly be affirmed so that the assessee is not given the benefit of depreciation in the subsequent years on the cost, which is hypothetical and unreasonable. 20. We have

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

TP and the learned DRP in support of the transfer pricing adjustment proposed to the income of the assessee and prayed before the Bench that the order of the DRP may kindly be affirmed so that the assessee is not given the benefit of depreciation in the subsequent years on the cost, which is hypothetical and unreasonable. 20. We have

RBS EQUITIES (I) LTD ( FORMELRY KNWON AS AMRO ASIA EQUITIES (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(), MUMBAI

method, that the rate of brokerage obtainable in the case of non-AE in India could not be accepted as CUP rate for benchmarking the transaction, that arm’s length rate of brokerage should be the CUP rate obtainable in case of top-10 FII non-AE.s to whom equity broking services were rendered by the assessee.He finally made

RBS EQUITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

method, that the rate of brokerage obtainable in the case of non-AE in India could not be accepted as CUP rate for benchmarking the transaction, that arm’s length rate of brokerage should be the CUP rate obtainable in case of top-10 FII non-AE.s to whom equity broking services were rendered by the assessee.He finally made

STAR TELEVISION ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

TDS amounting to - - Rs.1,82,84,887 9 Non grant of credit of advance tax amounting to - - 3 ITA 1813 & 1814/Mum/2014 Star Television Entertainment Ltd & Star Asian Region FZ LLP Rs.40,66,863 and short grant of credit of SA Tax amounting to Rs.5,99,465 10 Initiation of penalty proceedings under section Gr.No.18-20 Gr.No