DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Properties Put. Ltd. wherein the rate of SBI PLR 300bps was considered as the benchmarking rate. It is the intention of the law, and a generally accepted principal that benchmarking rate should be applied on a case to case basis and a specific rate of 300bps cannot be considered as a thumb rule for all cases if it is accepted

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. PAN: AAACT-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Properties Put.\nLtd. wherein the rate of SBI PLR 300bps was considered as the benchmarking rate. It is the\nintention of the law, and a generally accepted principal that benchmarking rate should be\napplied on a case to case basis and a specific rate of 300bps cannot be considered as a thumb\nrule for all cases if it is accepted

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

house trades and DVP trades. The Tribunal observed that the statute provides “arithmatic mean” wherein all the values are added and M/s. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd. divided by the same by the number of values and it does not give any scope for any weight to any value and any interpretation in other way would be violation

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

House, B-Wing, 4th floor, Room No. 126, 1st floor, Vs. 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AACCM 2563 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 07/11/2022 : Date of pronouncement 29/12/2022 M/s Mattel Toys (India

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. ()

House, Unit No.2001, 20th Floor Mumbai-400 020 Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai0400 013 PAN : AAAC0460H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Hiten Chande Present for the Department Shri Manoj Kumar – CIT DR Date of hearing 07/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 20/09/2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S (AM): These

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

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

Housing Co. Ltd NC-Significant RPT 6 Crystal Hues Ltd 11.27% 7 Quadrant Communication Ltd 15.84% 8 Indus Technical and Financial Consultants Ltd 12.05% Average 11.35% 7. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at the TP adjustment as per below working:- Particulars Amount Expenditure incurred for developing the intangibles Rs.1,61,01,97,731 Mark-up on Expenditure incurred for developing

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

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

Housing Co. Ltd NC-Significant RPT 6 Crystal Hues Ltd 11.27% 7 Quadrant Communication Ltd 15.84% 8 Indus Technical and Financial Consultants Ltd 12.05% Average 11.35% 7. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at the TP adjustment as per below working:- Particulars Amount Expenditure incurred for developing the intangibles Rs.1,61,01,97,731 Mark-up on Expenditure incurred for developing

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Urmi Estate, Vs. Mumbai 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAACN1335Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani Date of hearing 09-05-2023 Date of pronouncement 05-06-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : The Hon’ble President

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2) on 10th April, 2012, upon considering it necessary or expedient to make a reference to the TPO. 3) Assessment Order-barred by limitation: Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not treating the assessment order under section 143(3) passed on 30th April, 2015 as non-est being beyond the prescribed time limit of 31 March

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2) on 10th April, 2012, upon considering it necessary or expedient to make a reference to the TPO. 3) Assessment Order-barred by limitation: Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in not treating the assessment order under section 143(3) passed on 30th April, 2015 as non-est being beyond the prescribed time limit of 31 March