TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, 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.2 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

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

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

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

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

reassessment proceedings, on the issues taken up by the Learned Commissioner in section 263 proceedings. We have seen the reply furnished by the assessee filed in response to the questions raised by the assessing officer during the re-assessment copy of which is available at page No. 264 to 283 of PB. In our view the AO must have gone

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

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant: 8. erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive of the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C(3) of the Act were satisfied before making an adjustment to the total income of the Appellant: 8. erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not demonstrating the motive of the Appellant to shift profits outside of India by manipulating the prices charged in its international transactions, either at the stage of invoking or initiating

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

NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings is time barred under proviso to Section 147 of the Act in the absence of failure on the part of the Appellant to fully and truly disclose all material facts, as the same has been initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant AY and scrutiny assessment proceedings for subject AY has been completed

NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings is time barred under proviso to Section 147 of the Act in the absence of failure on the part of the Appellant to fully and truly disclose all material facts, as the same has been initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant AY and scrutiny assessment proceedings for subject AY has been completed