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

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

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

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

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)

125 to its associated enterprises. These services,\ntoo, were rendered on a cost-to-cost basis to various Shell\ngroup operating entities. For transfer pricing purposes, the\nassessee suo motu offered a mark-up of 8% on the relevant\ncost base, resulting in an enhanced income of INR\n96,30,73,610 in its return. In its transfer pricing study

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 144C(8), does not extend to\npicking up and making an enhancement of income in respect of an item\nin respect of which no variation is proposed in the impugned assessment\norder, and in the impugned assessment order. the \"variation\" proposed\nis with respect to Arm's length price for the sale of electricity only:\n(f) erred

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

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 Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

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 Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

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 Officer? 19.3.1. This question was disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by observing

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145,67,53,980/- and book profit

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145,67,53,980/- and book profit

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

Pricing. The name of Shri Vatsalya Saxena figures in the list of ‘Officers who are being posted to other station/region’ at Sl.No.11. Thus, he was transferred in the charge of Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) by the Board and the DGIT(IT) posted Shri Vatsalya Saxena vide office order dated 05/04/2011 as TPOII(2). Thus posting orders

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\nPage No. | 21\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92C of the Act. 11. Erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without applying his mind and without recording his satisfaction, thereby making the entire process of referring the matter to the TPC as invalid; 12. Erred in confirming the action

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee for the assessment

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Section 256(1) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961:\n\"Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the\ncase the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the\nbuilding expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be\ntaken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving\nat the real income of the assessee for the assessment

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed upward transfer pricing adjustment of INR 13,25,46,700/- consisting of the following: SNo. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Amount (INR) 1 Adjustment for Interest charged on loan given to AEs 10,51,98,575/- 2 Adjustment on account corporate guarantee 2,73,48,125