ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

10 of the Act. The assessee suo moto made a disallowance of Rs.0.31 crore under section 14A rwr 8D of the Act based on the report obtained from an Independent Chartered Accountants, M/s Bansi Mehta & Co., wherein the Chartered Accountants, post verifying assessee's books of accounts and relevant records and material quantified Rs.0.31 crore as expenses incurred in relation

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

10 of the Act. The assessee suo moto made a disallowance of Rs.0.31 crore under section 14A rwr 8D of the Act based on the report obtained from an Independent Chartered Accountants, M/s Bansi Mehta & Co., wherein the Chartered Accountants, post verifying assessee's books of accounts and relevant records and material quantified Rs.0.31 crore as expenses incurred in relation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

price higher than the MRP of the respective\ntinted shade. Therefore, the dealer can charge the cost of\ncolorant over and above the MRP of the base paint and they are\nat the liberty to fix the price of the final colour shade subject to\nthe Tinted Shades MRP list separately provided to the dealers\ni.e. the same cannot exceed

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

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 48,53,467 10AA of the Act in respect of remaining units 4. Denial of claim of depreciation

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

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the appellant cannot be said to be an „eligible assessee‟ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an „ineligible assessee‟, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order

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 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

DY CIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

transferred to the dealers for a price once the sales\ninvoice is raised and delivery of such goods are made. In case\nof agency, the principal record the sale as and when agent\nultimately sell the goods, but here in this case, sales are\nrecorded as and when the goods are sold to the dealers and\nnot when dealer ultimately

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)

10% mark up, whichever is higher. We have already rejected the aforesaid approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue of transfer pricing addition in respect of financial guarantee and have restored the issue back to the file of the TPO/Assessing Officer for determination of ALP afresh using one of the prescribed methods. Accordingly, we set aside

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)

10% mark up, whichever is higher. We have already rejected the aforesaid approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue of transfer pricing addition in respect of financial guarantee and have restored the issue back to the file of the TPO/Assessing Officer for determination of ALP afresh using one of the prescribed methods. Accordingly, we set aside

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

transferred to the dealers for a price once the sales\ninvoice is raised and delivery of such goods are made. In case\nof agency, the principal record the sale as and when agent\nultimately sell the goods, but here in this case, sales are\nrecorded as and when the goods are sold to the dealers and\nnot when dealer ultimately

DY CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

transferred to the dealers for a price once the sales\ninvoice is raised and delivery of such goods are made. In case\nof agency, the principal record the sale as and when agent\nultimately sell the goods, but here in this case, sales are\nrecorded as and when the goods are sold to the dealers and\nnot when dealer ultimately

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing provisions prescribed procedure for arriving at arm’s length price in a systematic manner in the Act. The TPO has rigorously applied various filters as applicable. There cannot be exceptions on application of filters as to industry class or to any specific assessee. The DRP justified turn over filter, export turnover filter, RPT filter by referring various case

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 being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 20 M/s. Teleperformance Global Services Privae Limited (Formerly known as ―Inellenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd.‖) appellant cannot be said to be an ‗eligible assessee‘ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the 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)

35,87,893 14,13,63,999 The ld. DRP directed on the Ld. TPO to account of import of consider alleged finished goods* excessive AMP expenses as non- operating while computing margin for import of finished goods. Further, the ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to examine the 6 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. correctness of margins of; • Sataytej

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] vide his\norder dated January 23, 2014 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and\nconfirming the adjustment made to the arm's length price in respect of back\noffice support services.\n2. Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15),\n10(34) and 10(35

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

10(1)(e). If due to t assessee to comply to the requirements of Rule 10(1)(e). If due to t assessee to comply to the requirements of Rule 10(1)(e). If due to the reasonable cause, the assessee could not furnish the relevant reasonable cause, the assessee could not furnish the relevant reasonable cause, the assessee could

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.

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the appellant cannot be said to be an ‗eligible assessee‘ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an ‗ineligible assessee‘, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order