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. ()

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 216(Mum trib.) and there are several other decision of Mumbai

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. ()

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 216(Mum trib.) and there are several other decision of Mumbai

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. ()

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 216(Mum trib.) and there are several other decision of Mumbai

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. ()

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 216(Mum trib.) and there are several other decision of Mumbai

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. ()

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 216(Mum trib.) and there are several other decision of Mumbai

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

92B of the Act which defines the term "international transaction" used in section 92(1) of the Act as under:- "International transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services or lending

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

92B of the Act which defines the term "international transaction" used in section 92(1) of the Act as under:- "International transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services or lending

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

92B of the Act which defines the term "international transaction" used in section 92(1) of the Act as under:- "International transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services or lending

HIRACO JEWELLERY (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 15, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

92B, at least to the extent it dealt with the question of I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 19 of 19 interest on delayed realization of debtors, is effective from 1st April 2012. The assessment year before us being an assessment year prior to that date, the amended provisions of Section 92 B have no application

COLAGATE-PALMOLIVE (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhcolgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Additional Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre, Income Tax-10(3) Main Street, Vs. Hiranandani, Gardens, Pawai, Mumbai-400076 Pan: Aaacc4309B Appellant Respondent

92B (1) what has to be definitely shown is the existence of transaction whereby MSIL has been obliged to incur AMP of a certain level for SMC for the purposes of promoting the brand of SMC." 59. In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression "acted in concert" and in that context referred to the decision

ASST CIT 10(3) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

92B (1) what has to be definitely shown is the existence of transaction whereby MSIL has been obliged to incur AMP of a certain level for SMC for the purposes of promoting the brand of SMC." 59. In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression "acted in concert" and in that context referred to the decision

ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALM OLIVE (I) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

92B (1) what has to be definitely shown is the existence of transaction whereby MSIL has been obliged to incur AMP of a certain level for SMC for the purposes of promoting the brand of SMC." 59. In Whirlpool of India Ltd. (supra), the Court interpreted the expression "acted in concert" and in that context referred to the decision

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

92B are described as an 'International transaction'. This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly' it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 58. In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), one of the submissions of the Revenue was: "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would

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

section (2) of Sec. 92B, we find, that the same presupposes a transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise. In the case before us, as the transaction under consideration i.e charging of interest on the amount of Rs.20,68

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

92B, we are inclined to accept partial finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer that it is a quasi-capital and its cost has to be benchmarked in the international market. In the given case, the Transfer Pricing Officer has already observed that the cost of capital of the assessee is at 9.945% based on the Balance Sheet submitted

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Thomas Cook (India) Limited Dcit-1 (3)(2) Thomas Cook Building Mumbai. Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort,Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaact 4050 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Dated 08.12.2014 & 24.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-58 & Of The Assesssing Officer(Ao),The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.).Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Tour Operator,Travel Agent & Is Also An Authorised Dealer In Foreign Exchange.The Details Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Assessed Incomes Etc.Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders Of Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Cit(A)/Ao 2009-10 30.09.2009 44,28,33,999/- 28/03/2013 46,8432,558/- 08.12.2014 2010-11 30.09.2010 37,15,77,109/- 16/01/2015 57,86,82,443/- 16.01.2015

section 92B of the Act. Secondly, the claim made was that the corporate guarantee was given on behalf of a step-down subsidiary and, therefore, it was a strategic requirement of business and was a shareholder activity. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the providing of corporate guarantee has not resulted to in any interest savings for the associated

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

68,000/- - Rs. 135,58,50,800/- = 136,13,17,200/- Add Mark up @ 15% = 115% of Rs.136,13,17,200/- = Rs.156,55,14,780/- Arm‘s length value for AMP activity = Rs.156,55,14,780/- Value received by the taxpayer = Nil Difference = Rs.156,55,14,780/-― Accordingly, the TPO was of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs.156

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

68,000/- - Rs. 135,58,50,800/- = 136,13,17,200/- Add Mark up @ 15% = 115% of Rs.136,13,17,200/- = Rs.156,55,14,780/- Arm‘s length value for AMP activity = Rs.156,55,14,780/- Value received by the taxpayer = Nil Difference = Rs.156,55,14,780/-― Accordingly, the TPO was of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs.156