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

1) as well as in explanation 2 of that section with effect from 1/4/2022, the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

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

1) as well as in explanation 2 of that section with effect from 1/4/2022, the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

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

1) as well as in explanation 2 of that section with effect from 1/4/2022, the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

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

1) as well as in explanation 2 of that section with effect from 1/4/2022, the order passed by the learned transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Act and therefore the said order is to be quashed. The relevant extracts of the decision are reproduced below:- "29. The provisions of Section 144C prescribe mandatory time limits both pre and post the stage of passing of a 10 A.Y. 2009-10 Tata AIG General Insurance transfer pricing

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

Transfer pricing adjustments 1. Rendering of software development 68,37,05,578 services 2. Intra-group services 10,51,45,309 Sub- total (A) 78,88,50,887 Corporate tax additions 3. Grant of lesser deduction under section

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

Section 92CA(1) of the Act.\n2.1.4 The transfer pricing adjustments are contrary to the principles laid down\nby the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2005-06\n(DCIT vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited) and therefore are required to be\nquashed and deleted.\n2.1.5 The Id. CIT(A) erred

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 10(1) of the Act is not sustainable. 21. We find that the assessee entered into a similar Seed Production Agreement with Shri Y. Reddi Ramu on 29/10/2004, as was entered in the year under consideration with Shri D. Satyanarayana Reddy on 08/11/2008. From the perusal of the copy of the aforesaid agreement dated 29/10/2004, with Shri Y. Reddi

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 10(1) of the Act is not sustainable. 21. We find that the assessee entered into a similar Seed Production Agreement with Shri Y. Reddi Ramu on 29/10/2004, as was entered in the year under consideration with Shri D. Satyanarayana Reddy on 08/11/2008. From the perusal of the copy of the aforesaid agreement dated 29/10/2004, with Shri Y. Reddi

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 10(1) of the Act is not sustainable. 21. We find that the assessee entered into a similar Seed Production Agreement with Shri Y. Reddi Ramu on 29/10/2004, as was entered in the year under consideration with Shri D. Satyanarayana Reddy on 08/11/2008. From the perusal of the copy of the aforesaid agreement dated 29/10/2004, with Shri Y. Reddi

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

10,106/- wherein the following additions/ disallowances were made:- i. Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares

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.

transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred by limitation and hence invalid in law.‖ 3.1. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1:0 Re: Eloal Assessment Order barred by limitation: 1:1 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

1,06,57,180/- of income as per return of income filed on 30th August, 2009. The learned Assessing Officer has made an adjustment of 02. ₹3,15,47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

1,06,57,180/- of income as per return of income filed on 30th August, 2009. The learned Assessing Officer has made an adjustment of 02. ₹3,15,47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

1,06,57,180/- of income as per return of income filed on 30th August, 2009. The learned Assessing Officer has made an adjustment of 02. ₹3,15,47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, 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.3 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.

1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per section 92CA(3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under section 153 expires

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

section 92CA(1) of the Act was issued to Transfer Pricing Officer – 4(2)(1), Mumbai. The background of the assessee is, assessee is the leading integrated travel and travel related financial services company offering a broad spectrum of services that include Foreign Exchange, Corporate Travel, MICE, Leisure Travel, Insurance, Visa & Passport services and E-Business. During this AY, Assessee

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

section 2019 153(1) i.e. 21 months from the end of A.Y. (plus 12 months extension considering TP reference has been made) Date on which limitation 1 day 1 day expires u/s 153 ie 31 December Less. Remaining days of 30 days 30 days December Less: Remaining days of 30 days 30 days November Due date for passing