TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. [(3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but the order under sub-section (3) has not been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

92C, the TPO is required to pass the order determining the ALP of the international transactions. No time limit was initially given for the passing of order by the TPO. It is only by the Finance Act, 2007, that sub-section (3A) was inserted providing time limit for the passing an order by the TPO. No amendment has been carried

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), NARIMAN POINT vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year, proceedings for which have been completed before the 1st day of July, 2012.] (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED -INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED INDIA BRANCHES ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. (3A) Where a reference was made under sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 2007 but the order under sub-section (3) has not been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section

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

92C, the other method for determination of the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under

DCIT(IT)-2(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, BANDRA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are accordingly dismissed\nand those by the assessee are allowed

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS P LTD (ASOL),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI & THE DY CIT,CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

92C of the Act read with Rule 1088 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 19. Erred in allowing royalty payment at an ad hoc rate of 1% only for use of brand name and trademark, disregarding the fact that the royalty paid by Appellant is for the entire portfolio of IP which also includes tools, technology, methodology, etc. 20. Erred

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

section 92C read with Rule 10B mandates that the\narm's length price must be determined having regard to the characteristics of the property\ntransferred or services provided, the functions performed, assets employed, risks\nassumed, and the contractual terms as they are actually performed. In financial\ntransactions, this necessarily includes the currency of the loan, the tenure, the security

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

section 92C read with Rule 10B mandates that the\narm's length price must be determined having regard to the characteristics of the property\ntransferred or services provided, the functions performed, assets employed, risks\nassumed, and the contractual terms as they are actually performed. In financial\ntransactions, this necessarily includes the currency of the loan, the tenure, the security

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 92C of the Act applied to assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before an Assessing Officer as on 01/10/2009. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) as regards Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Ground No. 8 & 9 raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed. 30. Ground No. 10 10. ―On the facts

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 92C of the Act applied to assessment or reassessment proceedings pending before an Assessing Officer as on 01/10/2009. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) as regards Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Ground No. 8 & 9 raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed. 30. Ground No. 10 10. ―On the facts

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

92C of tlie Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). Based on the said study, having regard to commercial\nand cronomic lactors, the amount paid/payable or received receivable in respect of the above transaction has been computed by the assessee, having regard\nto the arm's length price.\nNuto'st Seeneding to the assestre, the above mentioned transactione has been entered

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 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 Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

92C(4) of the Act to the total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (AEs) were not at arm's length: Rejection of benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant 4. erred in upholding the learned TPO's action of rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant

KANTAR ANALYTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIREFLY MARKET RESERCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANALYTICS QUOTIENT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

92C of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the TPO dated\n28 July 2023 is bad in law and ought to be quashed.\n8. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned TPO, the AO and the Hon'ble DRP have exceeded their\njurisdiction by computing the Arm's Length Price

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings. Reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer does not advert to any fresh tangible material which has come in his possession after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings. They only make reference to the Assessment Order for AY 2014-15 and notes to account to the financial statement which in no way constitute fresh tangible