L'OREAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

928 of the Act. The problem does not stop here. Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that

M/S NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD vs. ADDLCIT RG - 7(1),

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

section 32 of the Act. In our view the above observation does not support the case made out by the A.O. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee”. 13. As the issues involved in the year under consideration as raised in ground No. 3 & 4 of the Revenue

THE ACIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

DCIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

ACIT 5(1), MUMBAI vs. CADBURY INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

928 of the Act.The problem does not stop here.Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity

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

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

depreciation claimed on marketing know how and sustained the TP adjustment as well as the other additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS Adjustment on account of advertising

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

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

depreciation claimed on marketing know how and sustained the TP adjustment as well as the other additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5 ITAs 1240/Mum/2016 ITA 1518/Mum/2017 Mondelez International TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS Adjustment on account of advertising

ACIT 7(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-7(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Phoenix House Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.152/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3903/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Vs. Acit-7(2)(1) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix House M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

928 of the Act. The problem does not stop here. Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

depreciation on non-compete fees as the same is held to be capital in nature in AY 2002-03.” 3. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and, therefore, require no adjudication. 4. The issue raised in Ground nos. 3 to 23 is in respect of Advertising , Marketing and Promotion (AMP) Expenses that AMP is not international transactions

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

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

depreciation on non compete fees. We find that the additional ground is purely legal in nature,hence,we admit the same. 3. First effective ground of appeal (Gs.A O-2to9) is about AMP expenditure.It was brought to our notice that identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal for the 1800/M/16-+2- India Medtronic Pvt.Ltd

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

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

depreciation on non compete fees. We find that the additional ground is purely legal in nature,hence,we admit the same. 3. First effective ground of appeal (Gs.A O-2to9) is about AMP expenditure.It was brought to our notice that identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal for the 1800/M/16-+2- India Medtronic Pvt.Ltd

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

928 of the Act.The problem does not stop here.Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity

INDIA MEDTRONIC PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10 (1)91), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

928 of the Act.The problem does not stop here.Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity

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.

928 of the Act.The problem does not stop here.Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity

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

928 of the Act.The problem does not stop here.Even if a transaction involving an AMP spend for a foreign AE is able to be located in some agreement, written (for e.g., the sample agreements produced before the Court by the Revenue) or otherwise, how should a TPO proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Thomas Cook (India) Limited Dcit-1 (3)(2) Thomas Cook Building Mumbai. Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort,Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaact 4050 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Dated 08.12.2014 & 24.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-58 & Of The Assesssing Officer(Ao),The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.).Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Tour Operator,Travel Agent & Is Also An Authorised Dealer In Foreign Exchange.The Details Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Assessed Incomes Etc.Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders Of Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Cit(A)/Ao 2009-10 30.09.2009 44,28,33,999/- 28/03/2013 46,8432,558/- 08.12.2014 2010-11 30.09.2010 37,15,77,109/- 16/01/2015 57,86,82,443/- 16.01.2015

depreciation of Rs.1,86,692/- on Jodhpur property. On this point also, it was a common point between the parties that similar issue has been decided against the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 30/09/2015(supra) by following earlier decision of the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.9156/mum/2010 dated 31/12/2013. Consequently, the Ground