GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 10A of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned AU erred in reducing the telecommunication charges only from the export turnover and not from both, i.e total turnover and export turnover, in computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

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

transfer 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

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–I (DRP), Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment years 2009–10 and 2010–11. ITA no.1671/Mum./2014 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2009–10 2. Shri P.J. Pardiwala, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that grounds

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing Officer is restricted only to the determination of arm's length price of an international transaction between two related parties by applying any of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that the arm's length price in relation to the international 12 transaction shall be determined by any of the methods prescribed therein, being the most appropriate method. Notably, the phraseology of section 92C(1) of the Act makes

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer is required to determine the arm's length price of a specific international transaction. Section 92C of the Act prescribes certain methods for determining the arm's length price. Whereas, rule 10B

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

THE ACIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has to determine the arm's length price of an international transaction by applying a prescribed method. Section 92C of the Act prescribes the methods under which arm's length price can be computed. Rule 10B

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income”. 8 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee is a part of Medtronic Inc., a USA based global leader in medical technology which is engaged in developing and manufacturing a wide range of products and therapies i.e. mostly patented or IP protected items

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. GLOBE OP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 92CA(3) of the Act.” 2 M/s. GlobeOp Financial 2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian company is a wholly owned subsidiary of GlobeOp Financial Services S.A., Luxemburg. Assessee is primarily engaged in the business of providing middle and back office service, fund administration for age fund, etc. Assessee also provides independent service essential to the launch

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

10B, 10C and the new Rule 10AB only deal with the determination of the ALP. Thus for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act, what is envisaged is not a quantitative adjustment but only a substitution of the transaction price with the ALP. 70. What is clear is that it is the 'price' of an international transaction which

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 92D of the I.T. Act and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), (h), (i) and i) of the I.T. Rule

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing study report and subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) of the Act for gathering data not available in the public of the Act for gathering data not available in the public of the Act for gathering data

HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing study report and subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) subsequently invoking the powers given under Section 133(6) of the Act for gathering data not available in the public of the Act for gathering data not available in the public of the Act for gathering data

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIA MEDTRONIC P. LTD, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10B(1)(b), it is clear that even under RPM only the gross margin derived on an uncontrolled transaction can be considered for comparability analysis. Therefore, under no circumstances, the margin earned in a controlled transaction can be considered for comparability purpose. That being the case, the margin earned by Medtronic International Ltd., Malaysia, could not have been considered

UCB INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

10B(4) as the comparable companies were not selected on the basis of data relating to current financial year. He also observed that most of the comparables do not stand scrutiny of FAR analysis. Accordingly, he proceeded to reject the transfer pricing study of the assessee and proceeded to determine arm's length price independently. Though, the Transfer Pricing Officer

HAPAG LLOYD INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C(13) of the Act. 15. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, in the first round of litigation, when the very same issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal, the Tribunal categorically held that the price charged by GESA under the sub–agency agreement cannot be treated as internal CUP. He submitted, though, the Transfer Pricing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 2(24) has not been amended by the Legislature inasmuch as\nregarding the \"amounts declared, distributed or paid by way of dividends\" as\n\"income\" of the company distributing dividends. Moreover, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Tata Tea Co. Ltd (supra), has, in no uncertain words, held\nthat \"income as defined in Section