SULZER PUMPS INDIA P. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL./JT/DY/ ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TP adjustment under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in disallowing Rs. 1,63,23,954/- relating to the commission expenditure incurred by the assessee on its export sales. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities

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

disallowance of 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

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

methods prescribed under section 92C to undertake adjustment on secondary basis by considering convention expenses to be in the nature of expenses incurred towards brand building and business promotion; 23. without prejudice to the above, erred in considering convention expenses of Rs 27,11,48,553 as a part of transfer pricing adjustment as well as corporate tax disallowance thereby

MAHINDRA HOMES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, RANGE-7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

TP provisions and secondly while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, Short granting of credit of TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 49,10,597/- 34. Erred in short granting of credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. MAHINDRA HOMES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

TP provisions and secondly while computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act, Short granting of credit of TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 49,10,597/- 34. Erred in short granting of credit of TDS deducted from payments received by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 49,10,597 Non-granting of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

TP adjustment. These grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets – Ground No.11 12. During the year, the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.33,72,60,637/- as per the details given below:- Parties Nature of Intangibles Depreciation for AY 2017- 18 (in Rs.) WCIL Customer Contracts 29,16,57,838 WNS UK – Town

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX -14(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

TP adjustment. These grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets – Ground No.11 12. During the year, the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.33,72,60,637/- as per the details given below:- Parties Nature of Intangibles Depreciation for AY 2017- 18 (in Rs.) WCIL Customer Contracts 29,16,57,838 WNS UK – Town

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

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

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

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

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

TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Cadbury Holdings Limited be deleted. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.33 20. In the statement of income, the assessee has claimed income of Rs.4,99,80,342. The assessee computed a suo motu disallowance of Rs.42,29,990/- in the computation and before the DRP revised the disallowance to Rs.3,44,215/- under

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

TP)- 23.12.2019 143(3) 2016-17 Revenue C/S/250/202 2(1)(1), 2- Mumbai 23/1051775 042(1) 31 1891/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Assessee C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 32 2046/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA 31.03.2023 DCIT-1(1)(2), 28.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue C/S/250/202 Mumbai 2- 23/1051775 738(1) 33 1892/Mum/2023 ITBA/NFA

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of INR 1,37,15,947/- made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is deleted and Ground No.3 rasied by the Assessee is allowed. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 & Ground No. 12 (Additional Ground) 8 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 and Ground No. 12 pertain to the transfer CO No. 227/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) pricing additions

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

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

HAMON SHRIRAM COTTRELL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1882/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-9(2) (Earlier Known As M/S Hamon Shriram Aaykar Bhawan बिाम/ Cottrell Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road Main Frame, 3A-8A, Gf Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Royal Palam Complex Goregaon(W), Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-2254-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R.Parikh-Ld.Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra- Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2009-10 Contest Final Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2013 Passed By Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-9(2), Mumbai [Ao] U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution

TP Additions 3. Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs.35.28 Lacs 4. Provision for erection charges Rs.138.53 Lacs 4 M/s Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited Assessment Year: 2009-10 4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 4.1 The assesse paid Research & Development (R&D) expenses of Rs.74.13 Lacs to its AE namely M/s Hamon Belgium. As per contractual terms, the same