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 143(3) adding the amount of ` 2,62,84,830. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and on a perusal of the material on record, accepted the contention of the assessee that two companies selected

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

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

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

PRUDENTIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

114(g) of the Evidence Act 1872. 10. Further, the transfer pricing officer made the following observations: 5.7 From the submissions filed by the assesses, the valuation report, and the 2 agreements given, the following issues were observed: i) Replacement cost method is not applicable for valuing the business on going concern basis. Further, the valuer is not correct

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 Officer to compute the interest on the interest free advances paid to the A.E. Ground no.5, is partly allowed. 41. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. ITA no.274/Mum./2007 – Department’s Appeal C.O. no.121/Mum./2007 – Assessee’s Cross Objection 42. Ground no.1, in Department’s appeal corresponding to ground raised by the assessee

HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

Section 92BA (i) of the act. In view of the above omission, the controversy arose that whether transfer-pricing provisions are applicable to transactions covered under that clause or not. The honourable Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2020] 114

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 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

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 Officer observed that the assessee was unable to establish that it has received any benefit due to the cost incurred by the AEs. Accordingly, he concluded that since the assessee has failed to establish the benefit derived relating to the cost incurred by the AEs on various account, the arm's length price of such transaction

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 26/3/2014 wherein the total income of the assessee is determined at ₹ 4,746,798,774/–. 011. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an appellate order on 12th October, 2017, partly allowing the appeal. The learned CIT (A) while adjudicating the transfer pricing adjustment directed the learned

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 26/3/2014 wherein the total income of the assessee is determined at ₹ 4,746,798,774/–. 011. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an appellate order on 12th October, 2017, partly allowing the appeal. The learned CIT (A) while adjudicating the transfer pricing adjustment directed the learned

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

section 92(3) of the Act is required to be maintained with respect to method and analysis of debited by the assessee and not with respect to the method that could have been adopted according to the Transfer Pricing Officer, further clarified that in case, the description of the uncontrolled transactions considered by the assessee under external TNMM method

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

section 92(3) of the Act is required to be maintained with respect to method and analysis of debited by the assessee and not with respect to the method that could have been adopted according to the Transfer Pricing Officer, further clarified that in case, the description of the uncontrolled transactions considered by the assessee under external TNMM method

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), 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 Officer observed that the\nassessee was unable to establish that it has received any benefit\ndue to the cost incurred by the AEs. Accordingly, he concluded\nthat since the assessee has failed to establish the benefit derived\nrelating to the cost incurred by the AEs on various account, the\narm's length price of such transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLYUT 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 Officer observed that the\nassessee was unable to establish that it has received any benefit\ndue to the cost incurred by the AEs. Accordingly, he concluded\nthat since the assessee has failed to establish the benefit derived\nrelating to the cost incurred by the AEs on various account, the\narm's length price of such transaction

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

114 of the Paper Book which is a letter dated 7th November, 2013 addressed to the Transfer Pricing Officer wherein it was explained that the reimbursement of expenditure are of the nature of travel expenses, accommodation expenses, visa expenses, communication expenses, meal expenses and travel related, insurance expenses which are incurred by the assessee only on behalf of its associated

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

transfer-pricing officer i.e. at the rate of 0.20% i.e. 0.04% of the amount of letter of comfort is chargeable. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 90,490/–. 021. We find that identical issue arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein the coordinate bench on identical facts and circumstances in ITA number

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