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

G.S.CALTEX INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.228/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S. G.S Caltex India P. Ltd. बिाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of 215, Altrium, “C”Wing, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Unit No. 816/817, 8 T H Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, V. Chakala, Andheri Kurla M K Road, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcg6605R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TP adjustments on account of international transaction and adjustments was proposed by TPO to ALP vide orders dated 30.01.2015 passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act. The said TPO order dated 30.01.2015 led to the framing of draft assessment order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act, which led to the additions

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

TP study and the TPO was free to choose his own method. 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “K” in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.7330/Mum/2017, where under identical

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)

method selected for benchmarking is TNMM. The case of the assessee is supported by the case laws, which has been discussed above. Accordingly, we direct the TPO to hold Mecklai Financial Services as a valid comparable. 33. In the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. the TPO observed that it is in the business of providing management consulting

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

TP valuation adjustment restricting the depreciation, allowance. This has resulted in a double disallowance of INR 13, 60, 00,936. In this regard, we refer the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 19 March 2020 has passed an order in favour of WNS India for AY 2011-12 (ITA No 1955/Mum/2016) and AY 2012-13 (ITA No.2257/Mum/2017) whereby

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

TP adjustments in respect of such transactions and has relied on the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines issued in 2010. As stated in para 1.59 of the said guidelines, the business strategies should also be examined in determining comparability for transfer pricing 25 The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Limited (A.Y:2012-13) purposes and certain illustrations of such business strategies

JOTUN INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1126/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jotun India Private Limited Income Tax Officer 3(2)(1) Room No.502,5Th Floor Mumbai बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7437/Mum/2012 & 7666/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Jotun India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Room No.502,5Th Floor Income Tax Circle-3(2) बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Mumbai Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East),Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

method of cost allocation between trading activity and sales support services. Upon perusal, we find that the assessee, vide its letter dated 18/10/2010 made several submissions to contest the adjustment under this head. The said submissions, in our opinion, are vital to adjudication of this issue since these submissions, besides pointing out certain errors in the computations made

JOTUN INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1126/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jotun India Private Limited Income Tax Officer 3(2)(1) Room No.502,5Th Floor Mumbai बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7437/Mum/2012 & 7666/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Jotun India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Room No.502,5Th Floor Income Tax Circle-3(2) बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Mumbai Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East),Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

method of cost allocation between trading activity and sales support services. Upon perusal, we find that the assessee, vide its letter dated 18/10/2010 made several submissions to contest the adjustment under this head. The said submissions, in our opinion, are vital to adjudication of this issue since these submissions, besides pointing out certain errors in the computations made

JOTUN INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1126/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jotun India Private Limited Income Tax Officer 3(2)(1) Room No.502,5Th Floor Mumbai बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7437/Mum/2012 & 7666/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Jotun India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Room No.502,5Th Floor Income Tax Circle-3(2) बनाम/ Boston House, Suren Road Mumbai Vs. Behind Cinemax Theatre Andheri(East),Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-6665-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

method of cost allocation between trading activity and sales support services. Upon perusal, we find that the assessee, vide its letter dated 18/10/2010 made several submissions to contest the adjustment under this head. The said submissions, in our opinion, are vital to adjudication of this issue since these submissions, besides pointing out certain errors in the computations made

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

TP methodology adopted by the assessee. The learned CIT – A held that TPO has not brought on record specifically as to why the benchmarking methodology adopted by the appellant company is not reliable and is incorrect. According to the learned CIT – A segmental benchmarking carried out by the assessee was found to be appropriate based on his order for assessment

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

TP methodology adopted by the assessee. The learned CIT – A held that TPO has not brought on record specifically as to why the benchmarking methodology adopted by the appellant company is not reliable and is incorrect. According to the learned CIT – A segmental benchmarking carried out by the assessee was found to be appropriate based on his order for assessment

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

TP methodology adopted by the assessee. The learned CIT – A held that TPO has not brought on record specifically as to why the benchmarking methodology adopted by the appellant company is not reliable and is incorrect. According to the learned CIT – A segmental benchmarking carried out by the assessee was found to be appropriate based on his order for assessment

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BUNGE INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

method for determining the ALP, that the rates of CUP with regard to import of crude oil could not be compared to rates of merchanting- trade of the same commodity.The TPO observed under the TP Regulation ALP of a transaction could vary year to year depending upon economic conditions and comparability of the provisions,that CUP rates, applied

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

TP) A number 608 and 445/Bangalore/2016 dated 2/2/ 2022 wherein the identical ground is admitted. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned departmental representative has been held by the coordinate bench as per incuriam. Thus, now that judgment cannot be relied upon. In the and it was submitted that the coordinate bench in case of above judgment followed the decision

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

TP) A number 608 and 445/Bangalore/2016 dated 2/2/ 2022 wherein the identical ground is admitted. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned departmental representative has been held by the coordinate bench as per incuriam. Thus, now that judgment cannot be relied upon. In the and it was submitted that the coordinate bench in case of above judgment followed the decision

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Am & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 11(1)(1) (Dcipl) As Successor Of Mumbai Rohm & Haas (India) Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., (Rhipl) Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Block B M.K.Road, 02, Godrej Business District Mumbai – 400 020 Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4467B & Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TP analysis is to benchmark the internationaltransactionscarried out by the assessee with AEs with comparable cases using any one of the prescribed methods. When the CUP method using ICIS software covers 68% of the total transactions 15 M/s. Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd., that too being a direct method and a traditional transaction method, the ld. DRP ought to have

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