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

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

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

92C(1) by the TPO is not 29 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd 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 applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid

CLSA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C(1) & (2) of the IT Act. (vii) The assessee has submitted on without prejudice basis that the rate charged from the Non-AE DIls may be taken as comparable. This is not correct as the customers are not located in India. The AEs are more comparable to Non-AE FIIs. Therefore the rate charged from the Non-AE FIls

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

depreciation\npertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 for carry forward and set off in\nthe year under consideration. As a result, ground no.8.1, raised in assessee's\nappeal, is allowed for statistical purposes.\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n23\n24. Grounds no.8.2-8.4 were not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly,\nthe same are dismissed as not pressed.\n25. The issue

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT ,RANGE 5 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly\nallowed for statistical purposes, as per our aforesaid observations

92C(1) by the TPO is nottenable. We\nnotice that the TPO has computed the TP adjustment towards\nglobalservices rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited also in\n\n34\nthe same way byapplyingadhoc estimation of salary cost and\nman hours. Therefore our decision with respectregional\nservice fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pte Ltd., is equally\napplicable tothe current issue under consideration

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.

92C may not only be legally impermissible but will lend itself to arbitrariness. What is then needed is a clear statutory scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.” 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction

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 factors 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 factors which may be prescribed

ACIT-11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

92C", "Section 92CA", "Rule 10B" ], "issues": "The primary issues revolved around transfer pricing adjustments, including the determination of arm's length price for technical know-how fees and reimbursement of expenses, the correctness of comparable selections, and the allowability of certain expenses and depreciation

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

depreciation under section 32\nof the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.5,03,462/- made by the AO in the\nhands of the assessee is upheld. As a result, Ground no.1 raised in the\nassessee's appeal is dismissed.\n16. The issue arising in Ground no.2, raised in the assessee's appeal,\npertains to the disallowance of expenditure on account

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

depreciation against\nHFT/AFS.\nAccounting for repos/reverse repos (including liquidity adjustment facility)\nRepurchase (repos) and reverse repurchase (reverse repos) transactions are accounted for as collateralized borrowing and\nlending respectively with an agreement to repurchase on agreed terms in accordance with RBI guidelines vide master circular\nDBOD No. BP.BC.13/21.04.141/2012-13 dated 2 July 2012. The difference between the consideration amounts of first

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 Pan: Aaach9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant

section 92C by the Finance Acts 2009 and 2012. Further, with due respects to the Hon'ble ITAT, there have been several decisions rendered by different benches of the ITAT holding that the ± 5%)variation is not to be allowed as standard deduction[e.g.DCIT Vs Roche Diagnostics 19 Taxmann.com 192 (Mum) (2012)].This ground of objection taken by the assessee

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation against\nHFT/AFS.\nAccounting for repos/reverse repos (including liquidity adjustment facility)\nRepurchase (repos) and reverse repurchase (reverse repos) transactions are accounted for as collateralized borrowing and\nlending respectively with an agreement to repurchase on agreed terms in accordance with RBI guidelines vide master circular\nDBOD No. BP.BC.13/21.04.141/2012-13 dated 2 July 2012. The difference between the consideration amounts of first

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

92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2) thereof.” As can be seen from the above, the CBDT has held that where: • the onus is discharged by the Assessee; and • The data used by the Assessee is reliable and correct; there can be no intervention by the AO, M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets

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

92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2) thereof.” As can be seen from the above, the CBDT has held that where: • the onus is discharged by the Assessee; and • The data used by the Assessee is reliable and correct; there can be no intervention by the AO, M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets

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

92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2) thereof.” As can be seen from the above, the CBDT has held that where: • the onus is discharged by the Assessee; and • The data used by the Assessee is reliable and correct; there can be no intervention by the AO, M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. However, the aforesaid exercise of determining the ALP in respect of the royalty payable for technical knowhow has not been carried out as required under the Act. Further, as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal