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 adjustment. However, in the opposite situation, there is no mandate for reducing the income. In such a second situation, the receipt from the transaction recorded shall be considered at ALP, notwithstanding the fact that it is at exaggerated figure when compared with a comparable uncontrolled transaction. This is what has been laid down in sub-section

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

111 to 114 of the order with the following observations: - Page No. 22 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited “2) Whether the re-characterization of transaction and adjustment of interest is permissible for the year under consideration: a) The assessee totally ignored the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in section

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

section 10A of the Act. While deciding assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case rendered in assessment year 2005–06, directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the foreign currency expenditure both from export turnover as well as the total turnover. 8. We have considered rival submissions

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

111,900/–. For determination of the arm's-length price of international transaction, the learned transfer pricing officer passed the order under section

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

111,900/–. For determination of the arm's-length price of international transaction, the learned transfer pricing officer passed the order under section

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

111,900/–. For determination of the arm's-length price of international transaction, the learned transfer pricing officer passed the order under section

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

111,900/–. For determination of the arm's-length price of international transaction, the learned transfer pricing officer passed the order under section

INFINITY RETAIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

transfer pricing addition of INR 24,69,193/- is deleted. Ground No.3 is allowed. Ground No. 4 is disposed off as being infructuous. Ground No. 5 42. Ground No. 5 pertains to disallowance of Software Expenses of INR 1,00,56,108/- held by the Assessing Officer/DRP to be capital in nature. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

111/–. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. As the assessee has entered into certain international transactions, the DCIT, Transfer Pricing – I (9), Mumbai [the ld TPO] was referred the case for determining the arm‘s-length price of those international transactions. The learned transfer pricing officer passed an order u/s 92CA (3) of The Income

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

111 taxmann.com 94 in case of Swanand properties private limited was only with respect to applicability of provisions of section 43CA of The act for assessment year 2005 – 06 wherein it has been held that this provisions are applicable only with effect from 1/4/2014. Therefore, it does not help the case of the revenue. 046. Accordingly we hold that

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

111 taxmann.com 94 in case of Swanand properties private limited was only with respect to applicability of provisions of section 43CA of The act for assessment year 2005 – 06 wherein it has been held that this provisions are applicable only with effect from 1/4/2014. Therefore, it does not help the case of the revenue. 046. Accordingly we hold that

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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 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 Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing agreement unsustainable in law. In the light of the principles of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court the ad hoc determination of ALP by the TPO in contravention of the provisions of the Act cannot be sustained. The Ld. counsel further relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

M/S N. M. SHAH & BROS.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

111 taxmann.com 322 (Mum-Trib) 5. Dty. CIT v. Asian Star Company Ltd [2020] 116 taxmann. com 448 (Mumbai - Trib.) 6. Dty. CIT v. Ankit Gems (P.) Ltd [2019] 106 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai - Trib.) 7 M/s. N.M. Shah & Bros. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the penalty levied under