PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

house hold care, beauty care, feminine care and other products in India, Nepal, Bhutan and other markets as agreed between the assessee and its AEs. The 6 | P a g e ITAs No.1095-1097/Mum/2019 assessee filed its returned income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income at nil and the return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

house hold care, beauty care, feminine care and other products in India, Nepal, Bhutan and other markets as agreed between the assessee and its AEs. The 6 | P a g e ITAs No.1095-1097/Mum/2019 assessee filed its returned income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income at nil and the return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee.  Section 92CA(4) of the Act states that on the receipt of the order, the AO shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee according to section 92C(4) of the Act. On the perusal of the section

MOTT MACDONALD P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

House Dr R G Thandani Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 018 [AABCM0834G] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2), Mumbai ….……......Respondent Appearances by Aarti Vissanji for the appellant Rignesh Das, Inder Solanki for the respondent Dates of hearing of the appeal : February 24th, 2020 May 27th, 2020 Date of pronouncing this order : O R D E R Per Pramod

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92D, which in turn gives effect to the arm's-length mandate of section 92C. Read as an integrated scheme, the provisions translate the arm's-length principle into an evidentiary rule: an enterprise that pays its affiliate for services must be able to demonstrate, with primary documents, what exactly was done, in what quantity and at what cost

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

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. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACG1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR) Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 15-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15 -05-2019 आदेश

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACG1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR) Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 15-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15 -05-2019 आदेश

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

housing deposits in respect of rent-free accommodations provided to employee of the assessee company and accordingly not related to investment in tax free bonds. The learned AR further submits that Rule8D is not applicable for the year under consideration, which is now admitted position under the law. The reserve and surplus of assessee are 8 Colgate Palmolive (India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLYUT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92D, which in turn gives effect to the arm's-length mandate of section 92C.\nRead as an integrated scheme, the provisions translate the arm's-length principle into an\nevidentiary rule: an enterprise that pays its affiliate for services must be able to\ndemonstrate, with primary documents, what exactly was done, in what quantity and at\nwhat cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

92D, which in turn gives effect to the arm's-length mandate of section 92C.\nRead as an integrated scheme, the provisions translate the arm's-length principle into an\nevidentiary rule: an enterprise that pays its affiliate for services must be able to\ndemonstrate, with primary documents, what exactly was done, in what quantity and at\nwhat cost

HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

house property. The Ld. M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; AY: 13-14 Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same.” 03. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notices. This appeal is filed in the year 2017 and since then this appeal is fixed for hearing on seven times

ACIT 5(1), MUMBAI vs. CADBURY INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

House, Unit Vs. No.2001, 20th Floor, Tower-3 (Wing C)India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel. Mumbai-400 013. PAN: AAACH 0460 H आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5876/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Addl. CIT,6(3),Aayakar vs. Mondelez India Foods Private Bhavan