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

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

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 CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Section 92C (2) as in the statute at that point of time. 17. Ground No. 3 & 4 has not been pressed; therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed. M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. 18. In so far as ground No.1 is concerned, the depreciation

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income

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

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

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

depreciation.\nStatutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued,\nand the assessee furnished details and explanations from time to\ntime.\n2.2 During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed\nthat the assessee had reported transactions in Form No. 3CEB.\nAccordingly, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer\nunder section 92CA(1) on 26.07.2023. The Transfer Pricing

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

depreciation on unused plant and machinery of ₹1,73,829/- on unused plant and machinery of -. Further, the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the stment and added further sum of ₹36,86,308/- transfer pricing adjustment

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYERS P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Goodyear South Asia Tyres- Private Limited, H-18, Midc Industrial Area, Waluj , Aurangabad- 431136 Pan: Aabcg 5544P ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1, Jeevan Suman, Lic Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Cannought Place, Town Centre, N-5, Cidco, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad - 431003 .... Respondent

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 3 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing depreciation

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