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

TP adjustment for the\nimpugned AY. Ground No.1 stand partly allowed.\"\n8.4 Thus, Tribunal (supra) has mainly applied the floating rate of the\ninterest in assessment year 2012 2012-13 13 for the reason that there\nwas no change in the contractual terms in AY 2012--13 as compared to\n assessment year 2011-12.\n2011 The Tribunal(supra

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:" 19. Ergo, the TPO can pass an order u/s 92CA of the Act at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred to u/s 153 expires. Thus 60 days have to be counted prior to the date of last date

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires:" 19. Ergo, the TPO can pass an order u/s 92CA of the Act at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred to u/s 153 expires. Thus 60 days have to be counted prior to the date of last date

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Method transaction Atos India (9 months) 1 Provision of 576,69,58,597 162,83,26,008 739,52,84,606 TNMM software development (IT services 2 Payment of 19,08,852 10,88,389 29,97,241 CUP trademark 3 Receipt of 45,58,96,605 33,02,68,094 78,61,64,699 TNMM services 4 Reimbursement

AAACORP EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Aaa Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. C-206, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 Pan: Aacca8815C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Income Tax Offices, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

method, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction undertaken on or after the 1st day of April, 2014, shall be computed in such manner as may be prescribed and accordingly the first and second proviso shall not apply.] Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions

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

Method ("TNMM") 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT/ DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has received the services and benefitted therefrom for the purposes of its business operations. 1.4 The learned ACIT DRP erred in concluding that the Appellant has failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

reassessment proceedings were dropped by the Assessing Officer. 23. The ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of Assessing Officer /DRP on the issue of duplicate disallowance u/s.80IA of the Act. 24. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. In principle, we are in agreement with the submissions of the assessee that double disallowance 14 cannot be made

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

reassessment\nproceedings, and no new facts needs to be investigated for\nadjudicating the same. Issues alleged by the assessee are legal\nissue that does not require investigation of any facts.\n2.4 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the\ndecisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal\nPower Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TP premium and Total Premium and that the amount is calculated on a percentage on 00 Premium; they get amount as 3 on OD premium. 7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 has held that the assessee company has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TP premium and Total Premium and that the amount is calculated on a percentage on 00 Premium; they get amount as 3 on OD premium. 7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 has held that the assessee company has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TP premium and Total Premium and that the amount is calculated on a percentage on 00 Premium; they get amount as 3 on OD premium. 7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 has held that the assessee company has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TP premium and Total Premium and that the amount is calculated on a percentage on 00 Premium; they get amount as 3 on OD premium. 7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 has held that the assessee company has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

TP\npremium and Total Premium and that the amount is\ncalculated on a percentage on 00 Premium; they get\namount as 3 on OD premium.\n\n7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 has held that the\nassessee company has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U\nGuideline dated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No\nIRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated 27/03/2013

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

TP premium and Total Premium and \nthat the amount is calculated on a percentage on 00 Premium, \nthey get amount as 3 on OD premium\n7. IRDA in its order dated 17.03.2016 Aus held that the assessee \ncompany has violated Point 3(ix), 8 and 11 of F & U Guideline \ndated 28/9/2006 and Circular Ref No IRDA/CIR/011/2003 dated \n27/03/2013

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

method; Payment made towards cost allocations on account of intra-group services received 12. erred and upholding the learned TPO's action of determining the arm's length price of the international transaction pertaining to cost allocation payment of Rs. 5,66,39,404 (corrected amount aggregating

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

method. 15. In respect of claim of TDR expenses of Rs.5 lac, it is undisputed fact that assessee was engaged in the business of construction and development of building. The assessee has explained that TDR was a right of construction in form of FSI relating to land and building which was part of stock in trade in the business carried

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.

TP order. Separate segmental margins 4. Erred in law and facts, in upholding that the international transactions of the Appellant of rendering IT and BPO services under the Delivery Centre Agreement (DCA) are two distinct transactions (i.e rendering of IT services and rendering of BPO services) which should be benchmarked separately. Provision of IT services 5. Without prejudice to Ground

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

TP Adjustment also made various\nadditions/disallowances to arrive at the assessed income of the assessee under\nnormal provisions at Rs. 424,67,28,014/-. The AO also recomputed the book\nprofit under section 115JB at Rs. 430,23,05,337/-.\n3. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The\nCIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed