SCHINDLER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

TP adjustment are concerned, they have been upheld by the Tribunal in ITA NO.7470/Mum/2011 vide order dated 03/04/2023. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee raised multiple propositions against levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first proposition put forth by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the assessee can rely

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

TP proceedings. 36. The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that  it was unable to ascertain the corresponding costs it was unable to ascertain the corresponding costs  considering the technicalities involved and the nature of trade considering

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.02.2015 which was not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 144C of the Act and placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: Aker Powergas P Ltd v. Dy. CIT (140 taxmann.com 599) (Mum-Trib) “1. 2. Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt Ltd v. Dy CIT (ITA No. 2722 & 2723/Bang/2018

GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the order was bad in law as the same has been passed in violation of Sec. 144C of the Act. In support of its contention the assessee has filed paper book wherein it has placed copy of draft assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the A.O along with notice

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 5. The assessee has made economic adjustment on the issue of excess depreciation, foreign exchange fluctuation and under utilized capacity. The assessee has selected only one comparable i.e Triveni Glass Ltd. and the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 5. The assessee has made economic adjustment on the issue of excess depreciation, foreign exchange fluctuation and under utilized capacity. The assessee has selected only one comparable i.e Triveni Glass Ltd. and the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking

M/S. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

penalty of Rs.21,56,858/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which according to the assessee is squarely covered by exception carved out in explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of trading, R & D and Corporate Support Services. In the trading division

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(l)(c) Hon'ble quantum Tribunal proceedings in Penalty appeal Disallowance of 254,753,254 Disallowance Allowed (Para Penalty deleted - Advertisement upheld by the 4.1-4.9) [Para 3.3(i) & (ii)] expenses on CTT(A) (Page 23) production of television films and commercials holding the same as capital 4 M/s. Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited expenditure amounting

THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the learned AO be directed to drop the initiation of the aforesaid penalty proceeding. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either

INTERGREON MUNAGED SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

method was also adopted by the ld. TPO for determining the ALP. The ld. A.O./TPO determined the total income by making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,56,50,117/- by rejecting the comparable companies considered by the (A.Ys.2007-08 & 2010-11) M/s. Integreon Managed Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessee and had considered the other comparable companies for bench

ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTEGREON MANAGED SOLUTION (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

method was also adopted by the ld. TPO for determining the ALP. The ld. A.O./TPO determined the total income by making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,56,50,117/- by rejecting the comparable companies considered by the (A.Ys.2007-08 & 2010-11) M/s. Integreon Managed Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessee and had considered the other comparable companies for bench

INTEGREON MANAGED SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

method was also adopted by the ld. TPO for determining the ALP. The ld. A.O./TPO determined the total income by making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,56,50,117/- by rejecting the comparable companies considered by the (A.Ys.2007-08 & 2010-11) M/s. Integreon Managed Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessee and had considered the other comparable companies for bench

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Method (‘TNMM’) and taking operating profit/operatin and taking operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied certain filters which were partly rejected by the Ld. TPO. The Ld. certain filters which were partly rejected

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

Method (‘TNMM’) and taking operating profit/operatin and taking operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee applied certain filters which were partly rejected by the Ld. TPO. The Ld. certain filters which were partly rejected