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

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 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 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

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

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

transfer pricing officer to determine to arms length price of the international transaction. On receipt of the reference the Ld.TPO called for economic details of the transaction entered into between assessee and its AE that in form 3CEB. From the details A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13, Zensar Technologies Ltd filed by the assessee the Ld.TPO noted that following were

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

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

Transfer Pricing Related 6. a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in denying deduction under section 10A

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Pricing Officer were not on the basis of any detailed search process.\nAt least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer\nPricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental\nRepresentative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the\nimpugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals

ASST CIT RG 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CRISIL LTD, MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing documentation\nand conducting his own comparability analysis (and in this regard,\nobtaining the financial data of certain potential comparables using\nhis powers under Section 133(6) of the Act) which is not in\naccordance with the contemporaneous documentation requirement\nof the Indian TP regulations,\nb requiring financial data of only the current year (FY 2008-09) of\nthe

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

10A(b) to mean : `a transaction between enterprises other than associated enterprises..’. So the price in an uncontrolled transaction is a price of some actual transaction between enterprises other than AEs. Such price is then adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction. The adjusted price is taken as ALP. It follows

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN M.S, I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Oracle Financial Additional Commissioner Services Software Ltd. Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As I-Flex Range 8(2), Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai Oracle Park, Vs. Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(2), M/S. Oracle Financial Room No.216-A, Services Software Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As I-Flex M.K. Road, Vs. Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 399, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10A specifically excludes the expenses incurred in foreign exchange towards telecommunication charges etc., attributable to delivery of articles or things or computer software or providing technical services outside India. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT)(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.4.28 crores u/s. 92CA

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD ( FORMERLY KNWOAN AS I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Oracle Financial Additional Commissioner Services Software Ltd. Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As I-Flex Range 8(2), Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai Oracle Park, Vs. Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit 8(2), M/S. Oracle Financial Room No.216-A, Services Software Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As I-Flex M.K. Road, Vs. Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 399, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaacc1448B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10A specifically excludes the expenses incurred in foreign exchange towards telecommunication charges etc., attributable to delivery of articles or things or computer software or providing technical services outside India. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT)(A) erred in deleting the addition made of Rs.4.28 crores u/s. 92CA

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer pricing assessment Rule [10A)(d) & Rule 10B] of Income tax Rules, 1961, read with OECD guidelines under chapter III. 8.3. It is relevant to note the provisions of Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') which provides for the manner of determination of ALP of an international transaction while applying TNMM that reads

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section 92C of the Act provides for computation of arm’s length 14 price or ALP. It provides that the ALP shall be determined by applying the Most Appropriate Method out of the following six methods: (a) Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (For short ‘CUP Method’) (b) Resale Price Method (RPM) (c) Cost Plus Method (CPM) (d) Profit Split Method