ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

263 of the income tax act. Therefore any order passed under section 92CA (3) of the act by the transfer pricing officer prior to 1/4/2022 is not subject to the revision proceedings. Thus, the impugned revisionary order revising the TP Assessment Order passed u/s

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

Transfer Pricing Order. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing revision order u/s. 263

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors. 7.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by terming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead

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

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

263 of the Act. Since, the TPO is different from the assessing officer as he performs the transfer pricing function under the Director of Income Tax Transfer Pricing, therefore, CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO whereas in the case of the assessee the facts are totally different pertaining to jurisdiction of territorial PCIT. The case of CIT Vs. Gabriel

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalhindustan Construction Company Ltd., Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 083. Pan No.: Aaach0968B ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..... Respondent

263 of the Act, on the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act, when in fact the order sought to be revised is the Transfer Pricing

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore erred in seeking revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order passed under section 143(3)rws 153A, which was neither passed under section 143(3)rws 153A, which

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore erred in seeking revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order revision of the assessment order by setting aside Assessment order passed under section 143(3)rws 153A, which was neither passed under section 143(3)rws 153A, which

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

pricing study and comparables and has made the adjustment of Rs. 6,59,57,728/- to the ALP with respect to international transactions and passed the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.10.2016. 3. Whereas, the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act dated 23.12.2016 was passed. Against the draft assessment order the assessee has filed

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

BIRLA CARBON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

263 of the Act to revise an assessment order passed u/s. 144C(13) of the Act, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (ld. DRP). 2 Birla Carbon India Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 3. At the outset, we propose to deal with the aforesaid preliminary issue and, if warranted, we may deliberate upon the other issues

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

revise u/s 263 an assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Still further, the CIT(A) can enhance the assessment in an appeal before him. Thus, it is explicit that the powers to correct the mistakes of the AO in framing the assessment lie in the domain of the AO himself or the Pr.CIT

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

revised on 31/3/2014 at a loss of ₹ 811,807,537/–. The return was picked up for scrutiny under section 143 (2) of the Act by issuing notice on 8/8/2013. 04. As the assessee has entered into several international transaction the reference was made to the learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) – 2 (1), Mumbai (the learned

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

revise the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dt. 07.06.2021, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Our submission During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) the learned Assessing Officer has required details of large share premium received by the assessee