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

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), 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

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

transfer of rigs from its group companies to parties identified by the third party bank parties identified by the third party bank and pursuant to said pursuant to said arrangement the assessee had provided put options to buy certain arrangement the assessee had provided put options to buy certain arrangement the assessee had provided put options to buy certain preference

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 Grounds 1. Imputing interest on delayed receipt from debtors 2. Imputing interest on the share application money paid to the subsidiaries by the Appellant. 3. Imputing guarantee commission with respect to the corporate guarantees provided by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises Corporate Tax Grounds 4. Disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Income

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 ()

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

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 92C read with Rule 10B of the Income tax Rules. Reliance again is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd., referred to supra. Accordingly, we direct the Id. TPO to delete the transfer pricing

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 92C read with Rule 10B of the Income tax Rules. Reliance again is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd., referred to supra. Accordingly, we direct the Id. TPO to delete the transfer pricing

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 10B of the Act in its revised ROI, included suo moto transfer pricing (SMTPA) adjustment amount to arrive at Total

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 10B of the Act in its revised ROI, included suo moto transfer pricing (SMTPA) adjustment amount to arrive at Total

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 80A(6), there is, in effect, no change in the\nlegal position so far as the transfer price of the electricity from eligible\nunits to ineligible units is concerned since the connotations of 'arm's\nlength price of the electricity inherently include market price of the\nelectricity, and the 'market price of the electricity has been conclusively\ndefined

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

section 44BB of the Act. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, once the DRP in the case of A.E. had held that the A.E id engaged in actual drilling operation and the assessee is a mere intermediary, which decision of the DRP has been accepted by the Department, a contrary view cannot be taken in assessee’s case in respect

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

Transfer-pricing law presupposes granular, fact-intensive inquiries. The notion of borrowing findings from an earlier period is therefore incompatible with section 92C(3), which empowers the Assessing Officer to depart from the taxpayer's computation whenever any information or document maintained by the assessee in respect of an international transaction is found to be unreliable or incomplete.\n2. Ground

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Hon'ble\nDRP have erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) and 144B of the Act,\nwherein the total income is assessed at Rs.755,61,45,499 in\npursuance to the Directions issued by the DRP, as against Rs.\n215,80,20,610 returned income.\nTRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS

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

section that specifically provides for exclusion / non- applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions." 1.4 "Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment made on account of interest on ship acquisition on BBCD basis (hire purchase basis) by relying on Hon'ble ITAT's decision in assessee

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assesee receipts on account of reimbursement was recovered on cost plus 10 per cent mark up TPO proposed mark up at the rate 12.5 per cent

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

10B(1) prescribes the manner of determination of the ALP under the CUP method, which reads as under: 43 Star India Private Limited “(a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified; (ii) such price is adjusted

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

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

transfer of the price as contemplated in section 80-IA(8) has to be seen having regard to the arm's length condition, i.e., what would be the price under uncontrolled transactions in the open market. If the paper division has been purchasing the electricity form the Karnataka Electricity Board at an average cost of Rs. 5.80, which fact