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.

delay in filing of appeal is condoned for the Asst Year 2016-17 and admitted for adjudication. 3. Both the parties mutually agreed before us that the issues in Asst Year 2016-17 may be taken as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for the Asst Year 2017-18 also in view

MAHINDRA HOMES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, RANGE-7(2)(1), 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.

delay in filing of appeal is condoned for the Asst Year 2016-17 and admitted for adjudication. 3. Both the parties mutually agreed before us that the issues in Asst Year 2016-17 may be taken as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for the Asst Year 2017-18 also in view

ACIT, CIRCLE 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

delay in filing the appeals are condoned. 4. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A on the ground that the AO had failed to record his WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., satisfaction whereas

ACIT, CIR- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

delay in filing the appeals are condoned. 4. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A on the ground that the AO had failed to record his WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd., satisfaction whereas

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALSTOM INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, assessee’s cross objection is dismissed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

delay in ITA No. 956/Mum/2018 is condoned. The various grounds arising in the assessee’s appeal and cross objection are dealt as under. One common issue raised in these appeals relate to disallowance of the claim of adjustment for extraordinary expenses relating to recovery of production overheads, selling and administrative overheads, one time technological fee for Chennai metro

ASST CIT 12(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD ( FORMLERY M.S, TCS BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION SOLUTION LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, the plea of assessee under rule 27 of the Tribunal

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Income Tax, Large Tax (Formerly M/S Tcs Payer Unit, Business Transformation Centre-1 28Th Floor, World Vs. Solutions Ltd.) Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Sjm Towers, 18, Sheshadri Mumbai-400 005 Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 Pan No.Aacp8925G Appellant .. Respondent

section 92C of the IT Act. 1961. "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to exclude the company Exensys Software Solutions Ltd., from the set of comparables taken or Benchmarking the IT and ITES segment for computation of Arm's Length Price on Account of Transfer

DIAMOND DYE-CHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

92C(3) and section 92CA, thus the transfer-pricing additions made in the assessment order dated 31St December 2013, are liable to be deleted. 4. The above grounds are purely questions of law and go to the root of jurisdiction and do not require any new facts. 5. The Appellant, therefore, prays that: a) the Appellant be allowed to raise

TPG CAPITAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3),

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Ravish Sood

92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied. (3). The CIT(A)/ AO/ TPO erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disregarding the methodically prepared Transfer Pricing documentation submitted by the Appellant and in not appreciating that the arm's length price of the international transactions in relation to non-binding investment advisory services was appropriately

RANDOX LABORATORIES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(1) OR CIT(A) 7, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 92C of the Act, provides for computation of arm's length price of an international transaction between the assessee and its A.E. by following one of the methods prescribed therein. Rule 10C, defines most appropriate method to be one which is best suited to the facts and circumstances of each particular transaction and which provides the most reliable measure

TA ASSOCITES ADVISORY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCTI CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ta Associates Advisory P. Ltd. Dcit Cir- 3(3) Avantha House, Crompton Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Greaves Building, 12Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai Mumbai -400004 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aadct0884H

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Ground No.1: In this ground, the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in making addition as a result of upward Transfer Pricing Adjustment. The main grievance of the assessee is that the AO has wrongly included one comparable namely M/s. Motilal

BABCOCK & BROWN INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’) on account of upward pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated

TOKHEIM INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6601/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. At the time of hearing Ld AR submitted that assessee has filed the grounds of appeal in which assessee is pressing only ground No. 2 all other grounds are not pressed. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground No. 1, 3 and 4 as not pressed. 4. The brief facts relating

DCIT 2 (3), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-05

92C(4) of the Act, if total income having regard to arm's length price is enhanced, no deduction under section 10A, 10B or Chapter VI-A of the Act shall be allowed in respect of the increased quantum of the income. The Assessee had made payment of upfront discount of Rs.524,93,78,079/- to BT and debited Profit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

condoned and both the cross-objections are admitted. 3. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the bank guarantee fee levied by the AO and the assessee

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

condoned and both the cross-objections are admitted. 3. The appeals and the cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. The grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the bank guarantee fee levied by the AO and the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITICORP SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as unadmitted. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us. “1) Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in rejecting the economic analysis of the TPO to arrive