HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

92D of the with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent reasons thereof. reasons thereof. 2. The learned CIT The learned CIT-A erred on facts and in law in upholding the A erred on facts

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

92D of the with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent with Rule 10D of the Rules without assigning any cogent reasons thereof. reasons thereof. 2. The learned CIT The learned CIT-A erred on facts and in law in upholding the A erred on facts

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

92D and 92E ,"international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

92D of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned PCIT has grossly and unfairly erred in directing that the penalty provisions of section 271BA were M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. applicable to the Company on account of its not having filed report in Form 3CEB required under

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and various submissions made by the Appellant, without providing any cogent reasons. c. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in applying a set of inappropriate additional

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

92D and 92E. It is proposed to insert an Explanation to the aforesaid section so as to clarify the definition of the expressions "international transaction" and "intangible property". This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2002 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002- 2003 and subsequent assessment years.” We have also observed that Mumbai

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

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO erred in resorting to cherry-picking of comparables based on conjectures and surmises with complete disregard to the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks undertaken

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

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO erred in resorting to cherry-picking of comparables based on conjectures and surmises with complete disregard to the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks undertaken

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

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO erred in resorting to cherry-picking of comparables based on conjectures and surmises with complete disregard to the differences in functions performed, assets employed and risks undertaken

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)

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHL LOGISTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-9(3)(1) M/S. Dhl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 201, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacm6824H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.159/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S. Dhl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-9(3)(1) 201, Silver Utopia, Cardinal 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Gracias Road, Chakala, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacm6824H Appellant Respondent It(Tp) A No.1385/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S. Dhl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-9(3)(1) 201, Silver Utopia, Cardinal 215, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Gracias Road, Chakala, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Vs. Mumbai-400099. Pan: Aaacm6824H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.2. failing to appreciate the economic rationale of using "Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenses" (,OP /V AE') as the Profit Level Indicator ('PLI'), and instead using "Operating Profit/ Total Cost" (,OP /TC') as the PLI. 2.3. without prejudice to the ground 2.2 above

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

92D,\ndeclared the international transaction under Chapter\nX, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the\ntransaction, and\n(e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in\nsection 271AAB.\"\nHowever, the present appellant's case does not fall in the\nexception given section 270A(6) of the Act. Accordingly, ground\nnos. 1 & 2 raised by the appellant regarding

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

92D of the\nAct read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules').\nInclusion of comparable for Data Processing & Support services segment:\n1.3.1 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts and in law in applying the filter of diminishing revenue and\npersistent loss as well as different financial year ending

DHL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

92D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”); 3.2. failing to appreciate the economic rationale of using "Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenses" as the Profit Level Indicator ('PL'), and instead using “Operating Profit/Total Cost” („OP/TC‟) as the PLI; 3.3. failing to grant any opportunity to the appellant to rebut the fresh set of arguments considered in the directions; 3.4. computing