TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

pricing angle. (iii) The brand royalty charged Rs.1779.24 crores is for the exclusive use and exploitation of the brand 'TCS' and 'TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES' (for which assessee is undoubtedly the economic owner) by the AEs of the assessee for augmenting their business revenues and for the brand "TATA" of which the Tata Sons Ltd is the legal owner for which

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

transfer pricing provisions since they are merely 'machinery provisions and not charging provisions 2. Disallowance of principal lease payment of finance lease 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld AO, following the directions of Hon'ble DRP, erred in disallowing Rs 73.02.481 related to "principal lease payment of finance lease under

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

transfer pricing adjustment is warranted. 26. Further, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that with respect to the deputation of Mr A.J. Gupta as Jt. Managing director, it is stated that the Joint Venture partner CFCL, which is not a related party to the assessee, deputed its Jt. MD to AE IMACID and for such deputation it was paid

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 ()

price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In view of above n view of above, we feel

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing adjustment and ground number 1 of the cross objection of the assessee is also with respect to the same issue. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the facts in earlier years. The similar issue in the earlier years has been set-aside by the coordinate bench to the file

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing adjustment and ground number 1 of the cross objection of the assessee is also with respect to the same issue. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the facts in earlier years. The similar issue in the earlier years has been set-aside by the coordinate bench to the file

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

transfer pricing adjustment and ground number 1 of the cross objection of the assessee is also with respect to the same issue. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the facts in earlier years. The similar issue in the earlier years has been set-aside by the coordinate bench to the file

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Pricing Officer were not on the basis of any detailed search process.\nAt least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer\nPricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental\nRepresentative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the\nimpugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer pricing\nprovisions to domestic transactions was to ensure that where exemption\nfrom tax is provided for income from certain

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition\nthe\nAssessing\nOfficer\nalso\nproposed\nother\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition\nthe Assessing Officer also proposed other\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

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. ()

Transfer pricing adjustment on-account payment of service fees to Cadbury Holding Limited 28 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd 7. During the year under consideration, MIFPL has availed services from Cadbury Schweppes Asia Pacific Pte Limited ('CSAPL') (covered by ground no. 8 to 10) and Cadbury Holding Limited ('CHL') (covered by ground

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing officer to follow the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Everest Kanto and computed the arm's-length price of the guarantee commission fee at ₹ 0.5 percent. ii. The disallowance under section 14 A on receipt of dividend income of ₹ 8,303,761/– as exempt

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

transfer pricing officer to follow the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Everest Kanto and computed the arm's-length price of the guarantee commission fee at ₹ 0.5 percent. ii. The disallowance under section 14 A on receipt of dividend income of ₹ 8,303,761/– as exempt

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act wherein the same details were called\nfor by the Transfer Pricing Officer and assessee has submitted all the\nrelevant information before him and after considering the various details\nhe has proposed for TP Adjustments only to the extent of 40% of the\ncost allocation. He has technically accepted the various

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act wherein the same details were called\nfor by the Transfer Pricing Officer and assessee has submitted all the\nrelevant information before him and after considering the various details\nhe has proposed for TP Adjustments only to the extent of 40% of the\ncost allocation. He has technically accepted the various

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in both the years under consideration. After the receipt of order of TPO, the AO passed draft assessment order and the assessee chose not to file its objection to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Hence the AO passed the final assessment order making various additions to the returned income in both the years. The assessee filed appeals