DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Transfer Pricing Officer.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of paints and varnishes. The AO observed from the earlier year orders that assessee had not continued its pigment operations at Kavesar (Thane) from 01.04.1999. The AO observed that the assessee has however continued claiming expenses incurred with respect

KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. 16 Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the unutilized MODVAT credit has been added only to the closing stock by the Departmental Authorities by invoking the provision of section 145A

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed, inter alia, the following additions/disallowance in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2016: (a) Addition of INR 3,58,20,147/- under Section 145A

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,18,18,886/-. The Assessing officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,18,18,886/-. The Assessing officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,18,18,886/-. The Assessing officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,18,18,886/-. The Assessing officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs.1,18,18,886/-. The Assessing officer passed the order dated January 30, 2012 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, wherein besides

S.S. ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s 92 CA (3) of The Act dated 30th April, 2010, proposed a total adjustment of ₹5,02,99,706/-. Several other disallowances were made by the learned Assessing Officer. The addition of ₹19,55,313/- was made under Section 145A

SS ORAL HYGEINE PRODUCTS P.LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) ( NOW ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s 92 CA (3) of The Act dated 30th April, 2010, proposed a total adjustment of ₹5,02,99,706/-. Several other disallowances were made by the learned Assessing Officer. The addition of ₹19,55,313/- was made under Section 145A

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. S.S ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s 92 CA (3) of The Act dated 30th April, 2010, proposed a total adjustment of ₹5,02,99,706/-. Several other disallowances were made by the learned Assessing Officer. The addition of ₹19,55,313/- was made under Section 145A

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EXEDY INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing adjustment should be made. With the aforesaid observations, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA no.6885/Mum./2016 Revenue’s Appeal 12. The only ground raised by the Revenue is as under:– “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PIRAMAL GLASS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Room No.123A, Ltd) Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam M.K. Road, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 020 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg0093R

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm's Length Price vide order under section 92CA(3) dated 29th October, 2009 an upward adjustment of ₹2,62,05,329/- was proposed. Draft assessment order was passed on 30th November, 2009, wherein the above addition was made. The objections were filed before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel

DCIT CIR 7(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MERCK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

Transfer Pricing Officer. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 23. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 24. We find that there is a clear contradictions in the findings of the authorities below

MERCK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

Transfer Pricing Officer. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 23. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 24. We find that there is a clear contradictions in the findings of the authorities below

MERCK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

Transfer Pricing Officer. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 23. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 24. We find that there is a clear contradictions in the findings of the authorities below

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

transfer pricing ("TP") provisions. 4.1 Without prejudice and not withstanding to the above, the learned AO/ TPO erred in wrongly computing and not restricting the adjustment on account of location saving to Appellants contract manufacturing activities i.e. Rs.45,88,53,296, in accordance with the directions of DRP. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SYNGENTA INDIA LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

transfer pricing ("TP") provisions. 4.1 Without prejudice and not withstanding to the above, the learned AO/ TPO erred in wrongly computing and not restricting the adjustment on account of location saving to Appellants contract manufacturing activities i.e. Rs.45,88,53,296, in accordance with the directions of DRP. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

transfer pricing ("TP") provisions. 4.1 Without prejudice and not withstanding to the above, the learned AO/ TPO erred in wrongly computing and not restricting the adjustment on account of location saving to Appellants contract manufacturing activities i.e. Rs.45,88,53,296, in accordance with the directions of DRP. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case