DAM CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

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

section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submission made by the appellant. 1.2. Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in stating that the appellant has not raise any ground on the addition made by the assessing

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

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

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

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

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

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

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. ()

disallowance/ adjustment in income made on account of royalty for trade mark, that the average AMP expenditure by the leading FMCG companies for the period 2001-05 was 10.28%,that the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee during the same period was 10.45%,that the assessee had contended that its profitability(PBT to sales ratio) @10.85%was much higher compared

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

92E, [section 115JB, [section 115JC] or section 115VW] or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] The appellant has contended that it had claimed deduction u/s 11(2) of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and prepared form No.10 in physical and hence, only a procedural

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

disallowance only to the extent of expenditure\npertaining to home improvement and decor business. As a result, ground no.2\nraised in assessee's appeal is partly allowed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ntransfer pricing adjustment on account of non-recovery of charges for\nproviding the letter of comfort/support.\n21. The brief

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule\n8D of the Rules. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. As a result,\nground no.1 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed.”\n10. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the AO without\nrecording any satisfaction regarding the claim of the assessee

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

disallowance only to the extent of expenditure\npertaining to home improvement and decor business. As a result, ground no.2\nraised in assessee's appeal is partly allowed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ntransfer pricing adjustment on account of non-recovery of charges for\nproviding the letter of comfort/support.\n21. The brief

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

Section 92E of the Act. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any of the ground/ s before or during the course of hearing.‖ 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a trading house engaged in exporting variety of products including automobile spares, steel, engineering items, chemicals and leather products, etc. During

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue

COLAGATE-PALMOLIVE (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

disallowance. C) Assessee has contended that the CIT(A) in his order dated 21.06.2017 has held that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in case of assessee. The ld. PCIT observed that the above said decision has been appealed against before the Hon'ble ITAT and the said appeal is pending. He further observed that

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule\n8D of the Rules. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. As a result,\nground no.1 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed.”\n10. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the AO without\nrecording any satisfaction regarding the claim of the assessee

ASST CIT 10(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue

ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALM OLIVE (I) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

disallowing the payment, on the basis of an assumption that it is excessive, is an action completely dehors the provisions of transfer pricing adjustment found in chapter X of the Act. The determination of the ALP has to be done only by following one of the methods prescribed under the Act. (iv) In view of the above, as the Revenue

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

sections 92, 92C, 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

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance was called for. 2.4. Before this Tribunal, the assessee has challenged reopening of assessment, whereas, the Revenue is in appeal against deleting the disallowance/addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the First Appellate Authority. The crux of the argument, so far as, reopening is concerned, is that reopening cannot be done beyond a period of four

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance was called for. 2.4. Before this Tribunal, the assessee has challenged reopening of assessment, whereas, the Revenue is in appeal against deleting the disallowance/addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the First Appellate Authority. The crux of the argument, so far as, reopening is concerned, is that reopening cannot be done beyond a period of four