DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

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

section 133(6) of the Act gathered information ct gathered information from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under: by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. 15.1. During the relevant previous year, the AEs of the Assessee incurred certain expenses relating to salary and other related costs of the employees who were seconded to the Assessee and who worked under the supervision, management and control of the Assessee. Subsequently the Assessee reimbursed these expenses incurred

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 ()

Section 133(6) which, based on the principle of 'impossibility of performance', the Appellant could not possibly have access to as the same was not available in public domain at the time of carrying out the benchmarking exercise. 1.7. The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in not allowing appropriate

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

6. Thus, vide order, dated 20/10/2016, passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, the TPO proposed Transfer pricing addition of INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing the aforesaid Transfer Pricing Addition of INR. INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer also disallowed

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

6. Thus, vide order, dated 20/10/2016, passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, the TPO proposed Transfer pricing addition of INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing the aforesaid Transfer Pricing Addition of INR. INR.5,67,32,905/-. The Assessing Officer also disallowed

M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer may, for the purposes of determining the arm's length price under this section, exercise all or any of the powers specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 131 or sub-section (6) of section 133

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 collected certain information under Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6

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 collected certain information under Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6

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

133(6) to arrive at such difference in cost of coal, if\nany. The Panel does not appreciate the unilateral decision of the Transfer\nPricing Officer without any facts or enquiry or verified basis. Same applies\nto the rates, and duties. The Transfer Pricing Officer has not called for\naccounts of BEST and has not examined the rates, duties paid

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

6 (h)a record of the analysis performed to evaluate com a record of the analysis performed to evaluate comparability of parability of uncontrolled transactions with the relevant international transaction uncontrolled transactions with the relevant international transaction uncontrolled transactions with the relevant international transaction or specified domestic transaction ; or specified domestic transaction ; (i)a description of the methods considered

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133 (6) of the Act to the various banks and obtained the quotes. Based on this information, various judicial precedents adopted the arm’s-length price of the guarantee fee commission at the rate of 2.5%. As the outstanding guarantee amount was ₹ 107,155,972 for 12 months, he computed the arm’s-length price at the rate

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133 (6) of the Act to the various banks and obtained the quotes. Based on this information, various judicial precedents adopted the arm’s-length price of the guarantee fee commission at the rate of 2.5%. As the outstanding guarantee amount was ₹ 107,155,972 for 12 months, he computed the arm’s-length price at the rate

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133 (6) of the Act to the various banks and obtained the quotes. Based on this information, various judicial precedents adopted the arm’s-length price of the guarantee fee commission at the rate of 2.5%. As the outstanding guarantee amount was ₹ 107,155,972 for 12 months, he computed the arm’s-length price at the rate

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

133 (6) of the Act to the various banks and obtained the quotes. Based on this information, various judicial precedents adopted the arm’s-length price of the guarantee fee commission at the rate of 2.5%. As the outstanding guarantee amount was ₹ 107,155,972 for 12 months, he computed the arm’s-length price at the rate

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

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

133(6) of the\nAct since there was no internal CUP available. Thereafter,\nconsidering the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of\nEverest Kanto and Mumbai ITAT in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals\nLtd., the TPO has determined arm's length rate for\nperformance guarantee at 1.16%. The Id. CIT(A) after\nconsidering the decision of Asian Paints of ITAT, Mumbai

DCIT -5(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

Section 133(6) of the Act. After analysing the information furnished by State Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Bank of Baroda etc., the TPO asked for further details/information from the banks regarding factors which affect the charging of bank guarantee fee in the context of guarantees given by Indian companies to it AEs outside India which are newly