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

Method ("TNMM') analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP Study; 2.4 Holding that the comparable companies selected by the Appellant are not similar by wrongly trying to find similarity between business of comparables and the business of the Appellant while the business of comparables ought to have been compared with the intra- group services received. That the Appellant craves

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

method prescribed under section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Rule of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). 4.3 Not sharing the relevant material/information relied upon while determining the arm’s length price. Assessment Years: 2009-10 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 4.4 Questioning the commercial expediency/wisdom of the Appellant for incurring of expenditure

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment notice dated 30.3.2012 has been issued by the Department for reopening the assessment for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, which will again expose the petitioner, which proceedings would be nothing but multiplicity of proceedings to be faced by the petitioner which may prolong years increasing the sufferings of the petitioner, whereas

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

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

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

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

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

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

MOLSON COORS COBRA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground no.2 with its sub-grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

method for last so many years and had complied with the provisions of AS-29.In our opinion provisions can be allowed/disallowed depending upon the facts of the case.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the court of Rotork Controls India (314ITR66) has laid down the principles about provisions.We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment and it reads

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

reassessment notice. Further the legislature itself has provided for levy of penalty by the TPO under section 271G when the TP reference to the TPO is made by the AO and the Assessee fails to furnish information/documentation under section 92D(3). i) It is further submitted that in the assessment order at pg 51 of the paper book no satisfaction

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating

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

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1492/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor, Tower -3 (Wing C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaacc-0460-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 5 (1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.1576/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2,Mumbai, World Trade Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 005 बनाम Vs. M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ltd. 1018, Maker Chambers –V, 10Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaics-1404-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

reassessments- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) Two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating

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

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

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MYLAN DEVELOPEMTNT CENTRE P.LTD ( FORMELRY MERCK DEVELOPMENT CENTRE P.LTD ), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

TP proceedings which were pending on 1st October 2009. The relevant extract of the amended Section is as follows: (2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner as may be prescribed7 : C.O. 50/Mum/2013 A.Ys. 2007-08 M/s Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [Provided that where

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

TP proceedings which were pending on 1st October 2009. The relevant extract of the amended Section is as follows: (2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner as may be prescribed7 : C.O. 50/Mum/2013 A.Ys. 2007-08 M/s Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [Provided that where

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