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 assessment or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 1.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in violating the principles of natural justice

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot be adopted while interpreting 92CA (3A), because

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

natural meaning, external aid for interpretation are unnecessary. In the present case, we are called upon to adjudicate the period of limitation applicable to 26 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. TPO under Section 92CA(3A) and incidentally under Section 153. xxxx 26. Further, the general interpretation by resorting to the meaning conveyed under the General Clauses Act cannot

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2008-09. The nature of services in this year also is similar. In view of this, in the interest of justice

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer for A.Y. 2008-09. The nature of services in this year also is similar. In view of this, in the interest of justice

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 Officer / Assessing Officer. The observation of the Ld. DRP is reproduced below: - 3.3 Directions: We have considered the relevant facts and the contentions of the assessee and find that the AO has made an addition on account of expenditure u/s.14A. This is evidence enough that the AO is not satisfied with the calculation of the estimation

SAS INSTITUTE (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer. Paragraph no.15 of the order of the co- ordinate Bench categorically deals with this issue as under. The order of the co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- “15. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant paper books filed before us. The undisputed facts are that

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

nature, those are available to the assessee based on the judicial precedents later on. It does not require any further investigation of facts and therefore, those should be admitted. 08. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the application for admission of additional grounds relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Company Limited

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

nature, those are available to the assessee based on the judicial precedents later on. It does not require any further investigation of facts and therefore, those should be admitted. 08. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the application for admission of additional grounds relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Company Limited

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

nature, those are available to the assessee based on the judicial precedents later on. It does not require any further investigation of facts and therefore, those should be admitted. 08. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the application for admission of additional grounds relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Company Limited

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural justice. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon'ble Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal CIT(A)-52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural justice. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon'ble Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal CIT(A)-52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

natural justice. The appellant prays that the order of the Hon'ble Priyanka Sandeep Runwal Priyanka Sandeep Runwal CIT(A)-52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be 52 is dismissed, held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed

DCIT -5(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

natural justice. Perusal of the record shows that no objections were raised before the DRP to this effect. There is nothing on record to support the ground raised by the Assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 1.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed. Ground No. 2 to 2.4 49. Ground No. 2 pertains to transfer pricing

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

transfer pricing report, if the latter is not found to be the Most Appropriate Method.’ 33.3. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the assessee applied `Other method’ in its TPSR with a note on para 7.3 that : `Given that the Other method has been selected as the most appropriate method, the other methods

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Naturals (I)(P) Ltd. reported in 276 CTR 445 (Del). The relevant operative portion in this regard is reproduced hereunder:- “39. The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Naturals (I)(P) Ltd. reported in 276 CTR 445 (Del). The relevant operative portion in this regard is reproduced hereunder:- “39. The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

Naturals (I)(P) Ltd. reported in 276 CTR 445 (Del). The relevant operative portion in this regard is reproduced hereunder:- “39. The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

Justice G.P.Singh on the interpretation of statutes, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (1st Edn., Lexis Nexis 2015), which is quoted below for ready reference: 'The intention of the legislature thus assimilates two aspects: In one aspect it carries the concept of "meaning" i.e. what the words mean and in another aspect, it conveys the concept of "purpose and object