UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

10; or\ng) from any trust or institution registered under section\n12AA; or\nh) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under\nclause (vicb) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this clause,-\na) \"assessable\" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the\nExplanation 2 to sub-section (2) of section

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹59,05,186/-. The adjustment made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is with respect to the receipt of commission, various fees. The assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method

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

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹59,05,186/-. The adjustment made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is with respect to the receipt of commission, various fees. The assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method

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

2,26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹59,05,186/-. The adjustment made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is with respect to the receipt of commission, various fees. The assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price of the land and nothing further. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also would accrue to the assessee alone. In that view of the matter, the addition of the Explanation to Section 80IB with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001 would have no material bearing in the cases on hand

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price of the land and nothing further. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also would accrue to the assessee alone. In that view of the matter, the addition of the Explanation to Section 80IB with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001 would have no material bearing in the cases on hand

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price of the land and nothing further. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also would accrue to the assessee alone. In that view of the matter, the addition of the Explanation to Section 80IB with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001 would have no material bearing in the cases on hand

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price of the land and nothing further. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also would accrue to the assessee alone. In that view of the matter, the addition of the Explanation to Section 80IB with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001 would have no material bearing in the cases on hand

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price of the land and nothing further. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also would accrue to the assessee alone. In that view of the matter, the addition of the Explanation to Section 80IB with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001 would have no material bearing in the cases on hand

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer’), is void and bad in law as it has been passed beyond the period of limitation under section 92CA read with section 153. Consequently, the final assessment order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2(3), Mumbai (the ‘learned AO’) is also time barred. Additional Ground No.2 2. Without prejudice to additional ground

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

10 emphasizes substance over form, economic\nreality over legal form and conduct of parties over contracts for evaluating a\ntransaction from transfer pricing angle which has been ignored by CIT(A)\nwhich is more so when the Agreements and the Certificates issued relied\non by the CIT(A) belong to the period much later to the Court Sanction Order

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:

2 907,830 453,915 Total 194 75,081,866 387,020 Average sales price per unit 387,020 Similarly, in respect of product 207-4x4-483, the TPO selected the transaction with non-AE where the average price charged is more than price charged from AE ignoring the fact that there are transaction with other non- AEs where

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

10 per share to its AE on 01.12.2015, which are redeemable at par within a period not exceeding seven (7) years from the date of allotment. The Transfer Pricing Officer observed that the NCCRPS issued by the assessee are in the nature of quasi equity and thus the transaction is squarely covered under the provisions of section 92B(2

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses of salary and related cost on deputation of personnel in India. (1) Ground No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D and 244A of the Act (m) Ground No. 9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act (n) Ground No. 10 : Non-Grant