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

134 5,87,54,436 74,09,569 6,61,64,005 1,29,03,62,129 19,65,21,11 3 Leasehold 8,94,97,054 2,09,89,019 37,48,000 10,67,37,673 4,20,71,805 81,07,413 13,27,700 4,88,51,518 5,78,86,155 4

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 of 56 3. As far as the first ground of appeal of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee is a clinical research organization rendering clinical research services to its clients mainly conducting clinical trials in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices related sectors. In the course of his scrutiny, the Transfer Pricing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 of 56 3. As far as the first ground of appeal of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee is a clinical research organization rendering clinical research services to its clients mainly conducting clinical trials in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices related sectors. In the course of his scrutiny, the Transfer Pricing

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

134,358,252/–. 015. Aggrieved by assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 29/2/2012. The assessee contested the arm’s-length price of the ship chartering services stating that assessee has adopted the internal transactional net margin method whereas the learned transfer-pricing officer has adopted the external transactional net margin

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

The appeals are partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed transfer pricing adjustment of INR 83,48,801/- including the following two transfer pricing adjustments: Particulars Amount (INR) Sr. No. 1 Reimbursement of Out of Pocket Expenses 15,37,812/- to AE [For non–submission of third party invoices] pertaining to travelling, accommodation, mobile expenses etc. incurred by Woolworths Limited, Australia on behalf

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 19).” .” 10.4 In the case of Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra) Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra), the , the Tribunal held as under: "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance amounts much earlie amounts much earlier

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 19).” .” 10.4 In the case of Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra) Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra), the , the Tribunal held as under: "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance amounts much earlie amounts much earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 19).” .” 10.4 In the case of Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra) Dilip Anand Vazirani (supra), the , the Tribunal held as under: "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance "Thus, ITAT had noticed that the Assessee had received advance amounts much earlie amounts much earlier

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

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

4 stands partly allowed. . 4 stands partly allowed.” 8.3 Based on the above finding for assessment year 2011 ased on the above finding for assessment year 2011 ased on the above finding for assessment year 2011-12, the Tribunal in assessment year 2012 ribunal in assessment year 2012-13 also accepted the floating rate 13 also accepted the floating rate

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

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Though it has been submitted by the assessee that the payment for purchase of software is for acquiring of copyrighted article and not for transfer of any right in the copyright and payment cannot be construed

BECKMAN COLTER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6083/Mum./2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Beckman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park …….………. अऩीऱधथी / 3Rd Floor, Building No.Ii Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road Appellant Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan – Aaccb7266L V/S Income Tax Officer ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Ward-8(1)(4), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 847/Mum./2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Beckman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd. Solitaire Corporate Park …….………. अऩीऱधथी / 3Rd Floor, Building No.Ii Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road Appellant Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan – Aaccb7266L V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Range-8(1), Aayakar Bhawan Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar A/W Shri Paras Savla. Shri Keerthiya Sharma & Shri Pratik Poddar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 28.09.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

section 115JB. Being aggrieved with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising as many as eleven grounds. 4. Grounds no.1 to 8 are on transfer pricing issues and grounds no.9 to 11 are on corporate issues. 5. Insofar as transfer pricing issues are concerned, ground no.1 being general in nature, no adjudication

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

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

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

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

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

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred

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

134/- (i) Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred