DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHREYA LIFE SCIENCE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

92A(1)&(2) in the form of confirmation letters from them? confirmation letters from them? 6) Whether on the facts and circumstanc 6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in es of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the appeal of law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct

DCIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI vs. CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

68. In this view of the matter also the case laws referred by learned Counsel of the assessee are not applicable. Furthermore the decision of Green Infra of Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not dealing with layered remittance from source abroad. Moreover the issue here clearly is assessee applying opaque device which comes under the ken of exposition

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Section 92A(2)(c) of the Act, only Credit Opportunities II PTE Limited shall be deemed to be an Associated Enterprise (AE) and the other 2 enterprises have been wrongly treated as AEs, where they do not exceed the prescribed limit of 51% as per the provisions and the same would fall under the category of independent enterprises

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us Is A Company Now Merged In Bennett

68,074. When this disallowance was proposed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. Learned DRP confirmed the action of the authorities below in principle but reduced the quantum of ALP adjustment by altering the benchmarking rate to 12.25% and correcting the period for which the loan was given

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

92A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, assessee has not filed any report in Form 3CEB as required by provisions of section 92E of l.T. Act, 1961. As a result 4 no arm's length price is determined in result of this transaction and the creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction remains unproved. In the backdrop

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

68,074. When this disallowance was proposed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. Learned DRP confirmed the action of the authorities below in principle but reduced the quantum of ALP adjustment by altering the benchmarking rate to 12.25% and correcting the period for which the loan was given

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68,318 (net of depreciation) to the income of the assessee. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred is refusing the Deduction of Loss on Foreign Exchange Fluctuation of 12.61 crores. 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim in respect of one fifth of the amount paid on maturity of FCCBs, amounting to Rs.22,29,068, which

ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AECO INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1(1)(1) 579, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant M.K.Road Mumbai- 400 020 V/S

92A(2) the Assessing Officer wanted to apply. I have further perused the following: a) Transfer Pricing certificate in Form 3CEB. b) Transactions with related parties disclosed in Schedule 8 in the Notes to Accounts. c) The statement of the appellant that the said alleged Associated Enterprises, Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte. Ltd. is a completely unrelated party. d) In details

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92A is an international transaction which is covered u/s 92B of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mum- trib,) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmannn.com

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92A is an international transaction which is covered u/s 92B of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mum- trib,) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmannn.com

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92A is an international transaction which is covered u/s 92B of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mum- trib,) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmannn.com

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92A is an international transaction which is covered u/s 92B of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mum- trib,) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmannn.com

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

92A is an international transaction which is covered u/s 92B of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Piramal Glass Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 80 taxmann.com 68(Mum- trib,) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 79 taxmannn.com

M/S SHREYA LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-8(1) 301/A, Shreya House, Pereira Hill Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Road, Andheri East, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9890 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain A/W Mr. Karan Jain Revenue By : Mr. Ajay Chandra, Cit-Dr

68,395 sales to AEs Arm’s Length Margin(OP/OC) 27.35% Arm’s Length Exports 100,58,97,401 Exports to AE 91,15,87,115 Adjustment/Difference 9,43,10,286 5. In relation to the transaction by Shreya Life LLC, Russia. The brief comment of TPO and assessee’s contention before us are reproduced as under: Section

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

68,116/-. The assessee filed its objection before the ld.DRP, challenging the order of the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short)/AO on various grounds. The ld.DRP disposed of the objections raised by the assessee and the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016 was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.453

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalit(Tp) No. 1577/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Godrej & Boyce Compound, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Dy. Cit-14(1)(2) M/S. Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Plant 2, Block A, Godrej It Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Godrej & Boyce Compound, Mumbai-400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 2632 B (Revenue) : (Assessee)

68,116/-. The assessee filed its objection before the ld.DRP, challenging the order of the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO for short)/AO on various grounds. The ld.DRP disposed of the objections raised by the assessee and the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016 was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.453

REACH DATA SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodreach Data Services India Private Office Of The Income Tax Limited, Unit No. 4, 3Rd Floor, Officer-13(3)(1) B-Wing, Times Square, Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Andheri- Kurla Road,Andher (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400059 Mumbai-20

92A of the Act. P a g e | 2 ITA No.1842/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Reach Data Services India Pvt. Ltd Vs. office of the Income Tax officer-13(3)(1) (d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‘ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment under section

MAUSMI SA INVESTMENTS LLC (UNDER LIQUIDATION)FOR AND ON BEHALF O LIQUIDATED SUBSIDIARY MAUSMI VENTURES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7026/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mausmi Sa Investments बिधम/ Acit Llc (Under Liquidation) International Taxation-3(2)(1) Vs. 16Th Floor, Room No. 1607, (For & On Behalf Of Liquidated Subsidiary Air India Building, Nariman Mausmi Ventures Limited) Point, Mumbai-21. 1St Floor, Wing A, Cyber Tower 1, Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius -72201 C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 28Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower 3, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm0928G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Paras Savla Revenue By: Shri V. Sreekar (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2019 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:. 10.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014- 15, In Pursuance Of Directions Given By Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp). 2. The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Assessment Order Passed On The Ground That The Ao Was Not Right In Law In Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.144C Of The Act In The Instant Year, Since The Conditions Prescribed For Invoking The

92A(3) i.e.an ALP adjustment], or (ii) any foreign company]; and - the Assessing Officer proposes to make “any variation in the income or loss returned by the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee”. [13] There is no dispute that the assessee is an eligible assessee inasmuch as the assessee is a foreign company. The first condition

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

92A of the Act. In such cases the Assessing Officer will decide whether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue. 6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary compliance" (Emphasis supplied) 18. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT Circular where