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

PRUDENTIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

145/- as Capital Gains as per the provisions of section 50B of the Act. In this case, the TPO vide its order dated 24.01.2013 has made an upward adjustment to the arm's length price by Rs.104,03,50,000/-. In this case, the total sale consideration received by the assessee company stood at Rs.82.244 crores on which capital gain

MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTERS (INDIA) P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

145 was treated as transfer pricing adjustment. On the basis of transfer pricing adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer framed the draft assessment order which the assessee objected before the DRP on various grounds. 3. The DRP after considering the objections of the assessee, accepted its claim in relation to selection / rejection of certain comparables

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

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

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

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 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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 145? 4.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the basic tenet of transfer pricing

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 145? 4.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the basic tenet of transfer pricing

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 145? 4.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the basic tenet of transfer pricing

CHANNEL MUSIC NETWORKS LTD PARTNERSHIP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

transfer pricing analysis was done under Profit Split Method and TNMM with reference to the revenue generated from India. Out of the above said international transactions mentioned above, the TPO observed that transactions at nos. 1, 2,3, 6 and 7 are mirror transactions with Indian AEs and the same had been discussed in TP assessment of those Indian

STAR INTERNAITONAL MOVIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

transfer pricing analysis was done under Profit Split Method and TNMM with reference to the revenue generated from India. Out of the above said international transactions mentioned above, the TPO observed that transactions at nos. 1, 2,3, 6 and 7 are mirror transactions with Indian AEs and the same had been discussed in TP assessment of those Indian

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