ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 PAN:AAACZ 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : S/Shri N.K.Chand & Shahi Sanjay Kumar Date of hearing : 10/02/2017 Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal

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

pricing provision is applicable. 54 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 119. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the issue arising out of the aforesaid ground of appeal has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ACIT v/s M/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 8406/Mum./2010, order dated

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

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

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

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 ()

price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In view of above n view of above, we feel

FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

price of the marketing cost at 2,18,54,135. The assessee having debited marketing cost of ` 12,96,17,674 in its books, the differential amount of ` 10,77,63,539 was proposed as adjustment under section 92CA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment added the transfer

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

135 days (from 17/11/2016 to 31/03/2017) and proposed transfer pricing addition of INR 4,78,60,001/- on account of notional interest. 26.2. In the Objections filed by the Appellant before DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021 wherein the above transfer pricing addition of INR 4,78,60,001/- was incorporated, the DRP granted relief to the Appellant

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)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

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)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

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)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

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)

135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment

NIPRO CORPORATION,JAPAN,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

Transfer Pricing Officer) under Section 92CA[3] of the Act dated 31st December, 2022, and direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (the learned DRP) dated 29th April, 2022, were incorporated. 02. Assessee is aggrieved and has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Issue no. 1-Debt/Corporate guarantee fees taxed in India 1. The learned DCIT

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO,NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI/LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IS ASSTT, CIT- CC-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Mahindra & Mahindra Income Tax Officer, National E- Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi Corporate Taxation, Local Jurisdictional Assessing P.K.Kurne Chowk, Vs. Worli, Officer Mumbai-400 018 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm3025E Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed an order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 1st November, 2019, wherein the total adjustment to the Arms Length Price was proposed to ₹32,06,92,286/-. The learned Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C (1) of the Act on 28th December, 2019, wherein the total

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

STAR INDIA PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T.-RANGE311(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer has already been obtained and the issue requires proper examination by the Assessing Officer in the light of the report of TPO, detailed analysis of licence fee paid and other evidences filed by the assessee, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the matter is restored to the file

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under