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

3) afresh. 028. The judicial precedents cited are discussed and considered as under:- i. In Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction (ITA number 2895/M/2014 dated 11/9/2017) the assessment order was passed on 29/11/2011 for assessment year 2009 – 10. The revisionary order was passed under section 263 of the income tax act on 28/2/2014, which was prior to insertion of explanation

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

3) afresh. 028. The judicial precedents cited are discussed and considered as under:- i. In Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction (ITA number 2895/M/2014 dated 11/9/2017) the assessment order was passed on 29/11/2011 for assessment year 2009 – 10. The revisionary order was passed under section 263 of the income tax act on 28/2/2014, which was prior to insertion of explanation

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

3) afresh. 028. The judicial precedents cited are discussed and considered as under:- i. In Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction (ITA number 2895/M/2014 dated 11/9/2017) the assessment order was passed on 29/11/2011 for assessment year 2009 – 10. The revisionary order was passed under section 263 of the income tax act on 28/2/2014, which was prior to insertion of explanation

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

3) afresh. 028. The judicial precedents cited are discussed and considered as under:- i. In Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction (ITA number 2895/M/2014 dated 11/9/2017) the assessment order was passed on 29/11/2011 for assessment year 2009 – 10. The revisionary order was passed under section 263 of the income tax act on 28/2/2014, which was prior to insertion of explanation

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

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.

10,47,29,983/- under normal provisions of the Act and computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act was not made in this final assessment order. Against this final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.2. The ld. AR before us stated that the transfer pricing order passed by the ld. TPO u/s.92CA(3

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

section 153, i.e. 31st March 2013, starts with 30.03.2013 as per the following calculation:- 60 day period expires on March = 30 days (excluding 31.03.2013) February = 28 days January = 2 days Thus, the date on which transfer pricing has been passed was 29.01.2013, whereas the transfer pricing order u/s 92CA (3) has been passed on 30.01.2013. 12. In the recent judgment

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

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

3) of the Act making (a) Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.5,67,32,905/- and (b) Disallowance of INR.12,95,04,995/- as per Section 35DD of the Act. Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 7. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the above additions/disallowance, the Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief. The Learned

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

3) of the Act making (a) Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.5,67,32,905/- and (b) Disallowance of INR.12,95,04,995/- as per Section 35DD of the Act. Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 7. In appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the above additions/disallowance, the Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief. The Learned

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

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue. In ITA number 2381/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue. In ITA number 2381/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue. In ITA number 2381/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act is passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, such order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not sustainable. Mere pendency of writ petition before the honourable Supreme Court does not help the case of the revenue. In ITA number 2381/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10