SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE - 7(2) PRESENTLY ASSESSED WITH DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

section 92C(2) the price at which the C(2) the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed to be the arm’s length price. ength price. This is so because

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

CLSA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,82,394/- to be made to the transactions value of the transactions of the assessee with its AE. The Assessing Officer has computed the total income of the assessee under sub section (4) of section 92C

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

68 of Rs.24,19,212/-. 18. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the Ld.AR of the assessee vehemently argued that during re-assessment, the AO made necessary enquiries with regard to the applicability of Proviso to section 92C

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

68,748 7.1 The Ld. TPO however was not convinced The Ld. TPO however was not convinced with the explanation with the explanation of the assessee. The TPO rejected the comparables selected by the he TPO rejected the comparables selected by the he TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee, which were located in South Africa which were located

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

92C(4). It is humbly submitted that the reliance on this decision is misplaced in the facts of the assessee. 6. Your kind attention is drawn to section 92CE brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 2018. This section which specifically deals with and permits the secondary adjustment, in Sec. 92CE(1)(iii) refers

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

92C, the other method for determination of the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non- associated enterprises, under

VIDEOCON OIL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

92C without establishing that there was an arrangement for advancing funds to its Associated Enterprise at a 'price' without appreciating that computation of Arm's Length Price cannot determine the existence of an 'International Transaction' at a price and as 9 I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016 M/s Videocon Oil Ventures Ltd. such doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts

TRANSPORTER INDUSTRY INTERNATINAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

92C of the Income Tax Act and in applying the same. The variance of 5% should be considered on a percentage basis of the arm's length price and not on an absolute basis. Ground Non- TP issue: 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CITIA) was right in restricting the addition of the receipt

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

92C,92D and 92E ,"international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents; 24 I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 M/s Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having