DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Acit, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private Dcit, Range-14(1)(1) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.1528/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dow Agrosciences India Private Income Tax Officer , Range-14(1)(3) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 458, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 92CA(3) did not find favour with the appellate authorities. As observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view of the TPO was also approved by the DRP. 19. The ld. A.R had objected to the adoption of the royalty agreement between the aforesaid third parties, viz. AARC Corporation and CCT Corporation for benchmarking of the royalty paid

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

price of the property as per the „agreement‟ was Rs. 1,25,00,000/- however, the same as per the stamp duty valuation/market value was Rs. 4,07,06,000/-. It was noticed by the A.O that the assessee had computed the Long Term Capital Gain (for short “LTCG”) on the sale of land

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

rectification work on behalf of the Assessee (including reversal of amount charged by the AEs for warranty claims in earlier years) 11. SAP related support services received, 3,92,66,987 Cost Plus Method and payments made thereof (CPM) 12. ASP management services received, and 6,06,85,073 CPM payments made thereof 13. Microsoft licenses procured, and annual

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

154 on 21/02/2008 and 25/02/2008. The assessee filed revised return on 25/07/2008 at Rs.10,45,61,640/-, reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Jogeshwari Project. In response to notices issued u/s143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed the details. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to following

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

154 on 21/02/2008 and 25/02/2008. The assessee filed revised return on 25/07/2008 at Rs.10,45,61,640/-, reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Jogeshwari Project. In response to notices issued u/s143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed the details. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act with respect to following

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

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. However, the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh

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

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. However, the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01 -06- 2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh

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

u/s 35(2AB) in the\nreturn of income\nC*150%\n7,82,38,578\n\nE\nVariation in the assessment order in\nrespect to deduction u/s.35 (2AB)\nD-A\n3,61,05,919\n\n15. 3. Department submits that the assessee has not satisfied the\nstatutory conditions of section 35(2AB) read with Rule 6(7A), and that\nthe deduction

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Hon'ble\nDRP have erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) and 144B of the Act,\nwherein the total income is assessed at Rs.755,61,45,499 in\npursuance to the Directions issued by the DRP, as against Rs.\n215,80,20,610 returned income.\nTRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 21/04/2011 allowed interest of Rs.13,03,17,397/-. Subsequent to direction of the DRP, the AO again modified the interest amount vide order passed u/s. 154 dated 15/04/2013 to Rs.12,20,33,651/-. Thus, the assessee has offered interest Rs.4,23,16,581/- (Rs.16,43,50,232 – Rs.12

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification order under section 154 read with section 92CA(5) was passed on 18 December 2019, whereby the total adjustment was reduced to INR 30,31,89,144. The assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter before the Dispute Resolution Panel, which issued its directions, pursuant to which a final assessment order dated 26 March 2021 came to be passed

METAL ROLLING WORKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

transfer of development rights during the year under consideration, he proceeded to ascertain the present value of the 4 M/s. Metal Rolling works Ltd. sale consideration received in subsequent years by applying the provisions of sec. 269UA(2) of the Act, which provides for determining the net present value of future payments by applying a discounting rate

MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTERS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-15(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO-NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.723/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Maersk Global Service Centres (India) Private Limited, 12Th Floor, Empire Tower, Village Elthan, Airoli, Off Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan: Aadcm-7786-M ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit, Circle 15(1)(1), Addl/Jt/Dy/Acit/Ito-Nafc-Delhi, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act before the TPO. The TPO vide order dated 20/10/2022 accepted the claim of assessee and excluded the aforesaid companies from the list of comparables. However, the order u/s. 154 of the Act was passed by the TPO subsequent to the final assessment order. Therefore, the said order could not be given effect while

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer will not be applicable to the loan advanced by the assessee, since, it is for a period of six months. In our view, various workings furnished by the learned Authorised Representative in the written notes as well as the submissions made justifying the bench marking of the interest charged at LIBOR Plus 15 basis points requires

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

u/s. 148 of the Act M/s. Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., was issued to the assessee on 30/12/2017 after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded are enclosed in pages 60-62 of the paper book filed before us which are verbatim same with that recorded for A.Y. 2012-13 by the ld. AO. Hence

M/S EDELWEISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOW AS M/S EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

u/s. 148 of the Act M/s. Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., was issued to the assessee on 30/12/2017 after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded are enclosed in pages 60-62 of the paper book filed before us which are verbatim same with that recorded for A.Y. 2012-13 by the ld. AO. Hence

SABMIILLER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3435/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 Sabmiller India Ltd., The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skol Mumbai Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park, B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road,Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3449/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), Sab Miller India Ltd., बनाम/ Mumbai (Formerly Known As Skol Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park, B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 C.O. No. 108/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 3449/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 Sabmiller India Ltd., The Acit, Circle 11(1)(1), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skol Mumbai Vs. Breweries Ltd) Unit No. 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty Business Park

Transfer Pricing Adjustment himself in respect of AEs balance written off of Rs. 85,21,725/- himself but instead directing the Assessing Officer to dispose the rectification application without specific directions. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer /TPO

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

154 of the Act, 17. erred in incorporating the rectification order dated 24 January 2022 passed by the learned TPO in the final assessment order dated 26 February 2022 passed pursuant to the DRP directions issued on 28 January 2022, whereas separate draft order was required to be passed, which makes enhancement made pursuant to rectification order