OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment at Rs. 15,93,35,145/-. The draft assessment order dated 26.09.2023 was accordingly passed, against which objections filed by the appellant were disposed off by DRP on 18.06.2024. Pursuant to the directions of DRP impugned assessment order dated 22.07.2024 was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) and 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee

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

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

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

145/- on account of corporate guarantee provided to AE is not in accordance with law. 5. That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in making the upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,13,60,120/- on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs is not in accordance with law. 5.1.That the DRP/AO/NFAC/TPO erred on facts

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

145/- under Section 14A of the Act. Similar adjustment was also made in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 010. Accordingly, the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 26th February, 2018, was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹276,39,20,405/- as per normal computation

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

145/- under Section 14A of the Act. Similar adjustment was also made in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 010. Accordingly, the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 26th February, 2018, was passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹276,39,20,405/- as per normal computation

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:

145 444,742 Tata Africa Holdings (Tanzania) Ltd 25 10,430,450 417,218 Tata Zambia (Senegal) 15 6,569,062 437,937 Tata Uganda Ltd. 2 874,458 437,229 Tata Zambia Ltd. 6 2,501,716 416,953 Total 395 161,517,126 408,904 Average Sales Price per unit. 408,904 Comparable transaction(Non-AEs) Compotec

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

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

145 taxmann.com\n412) [2022] (Delhi ITAT)\n4. NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd Vs. ACIT (141\ntaxmann.com 137) [2022] (Mumbai ITAT)\nIn view of the above, the Appellant submits before us to allow\nthe deduction towards Advisory services expenses and\nSingapore IT Hubbing cost of INR 42, 54, 26,899/- under\nsection 37(1) of the Act. We agreed with

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by observing that he has\nasked the assessee to furnish various details vide notice issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act including the books of accounts of Head office\nwhere such expenses have been incurred, original vouchers supporting\nsuch expenses etc.,. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not\nfurnished any such details and with reference

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

SIDDHARTH DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

section 145(3) and disallowed the bogus expenditure of Rs 16,55.47 243/, being excess cost of construction. It is pertinent to note that this disallowance has been made by the AO out of total expenditure of Rs. 1,03,99,88,964/- relating to construction of Chhotani Chawl project, recognized and claimed in the Profit and Loss account

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

145 taxmann.com 214) (Bangalore - Trib.), IMS Health Analytics Services Private Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No.1549/Bang/2019), and CWT v. Spencer and Co. Ltd. (88 ITR 429) (SC). (c) Premium on debenture is an allowable expenditure. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘interest’ as under: “„interest‟ means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt

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

145 taxmann.com 214) (Bangalore - Trib.), IMS Health Analytics Services Private Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITA No.1549/Bang/2019), and CWT v. Spencer and Co. Ltd. (88 ITR 429) (SC). (c) Premium on debenture is an allowable expenditure. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘interest’ as under: “„interest‟ means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt

M/S EDELWISS RURAL & CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Edelweiss Rural & Acit Central Circle-1(2), Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Cgo Building Annexe, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400098. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakcs 7311 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jitendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement ___/03/2023 Order

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a than the market price and the transaction is a bonafide one, bonafide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price the taxing authority cannot take into account

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

section 92E by ICAI and transfer pricing guidelines issued by OECD do not prohibited foreign AE to be a tested party, therefore, where assessee company was a more complex entity when compared to its foreign AE, said foreign AE could be selected as a tested party. The Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT versus Inventors Knowledge Solution (P) limited (2022) 145

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 ()

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have