ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer has classified the income received under IPSA agreement to be of the nature of ITES and has also benchmarked it as such, the Assessing Officer cannot take a contrary view by stating that it is not in the nature of ITES only for disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10A

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

pricing study as a comparable company in respect of the\nData Processing and Support Services Segment.\n• NIIT Smartserve Ltd.\n• KPIT Cummins Global Business Solutions Ltd.\n• Allsec Technologies Ltd\n• R-Systems International Ltd\nRejection of comparable for Data Processing & Support services segment:\n1.3.2 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singhwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Income Tax- 10(2) Complex, Mumbai Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw2598L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10A of the Act in respect of addition made to the income of Appellant Company on account of disallowance of aforesaid expenses. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in making and the DRP further erred in upholding the reference to the learned Transfer Pricing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Officer compared the controlled arrangements with another controlled arrangement with the A.E. MTV Asia Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. and controlled arrangement entered by the assessee with the other A.Es i.e., MTV Networks India Pvt. Ltd. and Nick Asia. It is aptly brought to our notice by the learned A.R. that similar issue has already been considered by this

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

sections": [ "90", "92C(3)", "92CA(1)", "37(1)", "80G", "14A", "135", "40(a)(i)", "40(a)(ia)", "115JB", "10AA", "195", "10A", "9(1)(vi)", "13(2)", "13(3)", "9(1)(iv)", "Article 25", "Article 7", "Article 12" ], "issues": "The appeals raised multiple issues including transfer pricing

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer should be restored. 43. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Insofar as the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

transfer pricing adjustments are treated as partly allowed. 21 Capgemini India Private Limited 21. Now we will take-up other domestic corporate tax grounds. In Ground no. 10, assessee has raised the following ground :- “ DRP has erred in reducing the losses of Chennai unit at Rs. 11,35,20,100/- and Kolkata unit at Rs. 84,80,844/-, aggregating

NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Unit 501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. Pan:Aaaca 9649L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent It(Tp)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By : Shri Debashish Chand Date Of Hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2016

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 29/12/2015, whereby an addition of Rs.26,29,86,783/- has been made to the returned income on account of determination of arm's length price of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee with its associated enterprises. Against such additions, assessee is in appeal before us on the above stated

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments were incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 28.03.2013. In the Draft Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer also proposed 6. disallowance of INR 172,94,09,811/- out of aggregate deduction of INR 263,04,15,538/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 10A

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer pricing issues as contained in sections 92-92F and connected rules as contained in Rules 10A,10B,10C,10D and 10E of Income

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 Adjustment 63,87,42,448 Disallowance of 2,92,19,122 depreciation of Goodwill Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 16,65,932 Disallowance due to non 64,45,907 deduction of TDS of foreign Parties Delayed payment of ES1C 1,74,35,513 & PF 228,64,99,895 Less Deduction Deduction u/s 10A

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

Transfer Pricing provisions contained Page No. 9 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited in sections 92 to 92F of the Act r.w. Rules 10A

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

Section 92C of the Income Tin Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the transaction. Parishi Diamonds 12 CONCLUSION. As the firm has also sold diamonds to independent parties

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

section 80IA(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on one hand accepted the price charged by the assessee from its overseas AE at arm’s length under transfer pricing mechanism and on the other while computing deduction u/s. 10A

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

section 80IA(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on one hand accepted the price charged by the assessee from its overseas AE at arm’s length under transfer pricing mechanism and on the other while computing deduction u/s. 10A

SUREPREP (INDIA)P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

section 80IA(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on one hand accepted the price charged by the assessee from its overseas AE at arm’s length under transfer pricing mechanism and on the other while computing deduction u/s. 10A

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

10A/ 10B of the Act. Alternatively the Appellant prays that it be appropriately granted relief in assessment year 2010-11. Ground 4 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section

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