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

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

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

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

147. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Explanation (iv) to Section 194C of the Act specifically covers the term „broadcasting and telecasting‟ within the meaning of the term „work‟ and hence the payment of up–linking charges should be subject to TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 148. Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that it has deducted

GATEGROUP INVESTMENTS SINGAPORE PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. INT TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

147 of the Income Tax Act r.w. section 144C(13) of the Act , 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in computing the total income of the appellant

ACIT-18(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. JEWELLERS NARANDAS & SONS, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we allow ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in CO. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order, we notice that Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is only on merit, t...

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit-18(1), M/S Jewellers Narandas & Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Earnest House, Nariman Street, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafj2885J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 59/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jewellers Narandas & Acit-18(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Point, Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar G. Subrahmanyam, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri K. Shivaraman, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

147 of the Act, accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Vide letter dated 11.04.2014, assessee requested the AO to treat the return filed on 3 I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 & CO 59/Mum/2019 M/s Jewellers Narandas & Sons 24.10.2007 as return filed u/s 148 of the Act. Further, notices u/s

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

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

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act. AAA Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 3. Assessee being aggrieved with this order of AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the action of AO. Assessee being further aggrieved preferred this present appeal before us. We have gone through the order of AO along with

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

TP OP/TC Using As per TPO OP/TC Nature of study Report March business 2007 data Agrima -2.42% 1.39% Engaged in consultants providing International business Ltd. support services and assistance in feasibility study of projects. Cyber media 2.33% 8.73% Engaged in events Ltd. organizing conferences, exhibitions & Seminars and specially events. 4 Pfizer Limited Hindustan 10.33% 9.57% Engaged in Housing Co. rendering

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

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

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

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

TP(II)(2), Mumbai. The first objection of the assessee is that Explanation to section 92CA does not mandate Additional Commissioner to be the TPO. Here it would be imperative to refer to Explanation to section 92CA of the Act. “Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, “Transfer Pricing Officer” means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TP) Page No. 16 ITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) CO NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited where administrative issues of similar nature came for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this case, the Hon'ble Tribunal had noted that when the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT for making reference to the TPO was not followed

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

147 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Since the issues are common and connected and the appeals were heard together these are being consolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience 2. The common grounds of appeal read as under:- For the sake of reference