SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

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

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

104,228,931/– holding that the adjustment would only be made to the extent of ₹ 28,052,480/–. The learned CIT – A directed learned transfer pricing officer to give the benefit to the assessee of +_5% as per the proviso to 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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with its AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO ask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the Assessee to its AE’s during the relevant previous year. In response the Assessee provided the following

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with its AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO ask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the Assessee to its AE’s during the relevant previous year. In response the Assessee provided the following

ITO 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JARDINE LLOYED THOMPSON P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

104 (Mum.); and iii) TNT India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 2011–TII–39–ITAT–Bang– TP. 17. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the company is not at all comparable to the assessee as 95% of its revenue is earned from translation services which are not comparable to BPO service. Thus, he submitted, that the company was rightly rejected as comparable

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. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 92C of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the rate of interest on loans given to Associated Enterprises @ LIBOR + 2% instead of 17.22% proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing

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

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Transfer Pricing Officer to benchmark the above transactions as per law. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Page 21 of 29 Castrol India Limited 38. With regard to Ground No. 2.1 and 2.2, the relevant facts are, assessee has two plans in relation to share based payments viz. Share Value Plan and Share Match Plan

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure. Ground raised is allowed. 24. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in turn relying on the decision of Assessment Year 2006-07. These issues are settled in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, these

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Acit, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private Dcit, Range-14(1)(1) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.1528/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dow Agrosciences India Private Income Tax Officer , Range-14(1)(3) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 458, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

104 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of downward adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transaction pertaining to availing of services. Rejection of the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant 18. erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant including the analysis using

MAJESCO SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 7070/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) Majesco Software & Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., P-136 Mndc Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710 Pan: Aajcm5178K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

section 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order dated 24/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of TPO the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide directions dated 23/09/2019 dismissed the objections of assessee in toto. In line with the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned assessment order

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing, any such adjustment in royalty income can be allowed to the assessee as a result of an APA to which the assessee is not even a party. Whichever way one looks at it, the core issue really is whether or not the quantification of royalty income in the hands of the assessee will stand reduced by the refund

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing, any such adjustment in royalty income can be allowed to the assessee as a result of an APA to which the assessee is not even a party. Whichever way one looks at it, the core issue really is whether or not the quantification of royalty income in the hands of the assessee will stand reduced by the refund

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing, any such adjustment in royalty income can be allowed to the assessee as a result of an APA to which the assessee is not even a party. Whichever way one looks at it, the core issue really is whether or not the quantification of royalty income in the hands of the assessee will stand reduced by the refund

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing, any such adjustment in royalty income can be allowed to the assessee as a result of an APA to which the assessee is not even a party. Whichever way one looks at it, the core issue really is whether or not the quantification of royalty income in the hands of the assessee will stand reduced by the refund