ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 148 of the act and reference was made to the learned transfer pricing officer in terms of Para number

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

price at which these are transferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit was made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it was the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the Assessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

148,480/- has been issued but the Appellant had received no such refund order. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 18. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. 5. Coming to the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13, which is directed against the order dated 22nd December

WARBURG PINCUS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6981/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008–09) Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Express Towers ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacw5205E V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–3(3), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel–II, (DRP), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10 and 2009–10. ITA no.6989/Mum./2012 – A.Y. 2008–09 2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian company is a subsidiary of Warburg Pincus

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

transfer price..............” iv) that there was no proof that the investment made by the assessee in Tops BV, Netherlands, was actually in the nature of investment in share capital and not actually a loan in the garb of share capital. 6.5.1 In rejoinder to the above contentions of the learned D.R., the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

148, on the book profit declared under section 115JB. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that 4 Strides Shasun Limited Strides Arcolab Limited assessee had debited an amount of ` 3,23,93,782 to the Profit & Loss account on account of research and development expenditure and claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) for an amount

M/S. SUMER BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumer Builders Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 220, Commerce House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, Pan: Aaacs7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

transfer of shares in his return of income for assessment. As such income to the tune o Rs.2,02,10,000/- (204100000 sale price - 100000 cost price) has thus escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2006-07." In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned D.R. that no incriminating documents relating to the assessee were found during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S.GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate adjudication

M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

148 of the Act is also invalid. Since we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the principal arguments, we are not deciding the other, without prejudice, submissions made before us during the course of hearing. Ground No.1 is therefore allowed. 9. The issue raised in ground No.2 is general in nature and need no separate adjudication

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) – 2 (1), Mumbai (the learned TPO). He passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act wherein he proposed five adjustment to the international transaction. 1. The transactions were coming from assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein Assessee entered In to an agreement dated 22 July 2008 and acquired two ships on bare boat charter cum Demise basis

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

transfer pricing provisions are not application on issue of share capital. It may be noted in this regard that the decision in the case of Vodafone was pronounced on 13.10.2014 which was not available at the time of reopening of the assessment on 25.02.2013. The correctness of the reopening of assessment should be judged in accordance with the legal position

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as understood by Sec. 2(26) of the Act and consequently, there does not exist

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

transfer pricing adjustment, and\nthe adjustments, if any, were confined to corporate tax issues.\n5. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated by\nissuance of notice under section 148

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACK2632B Appellant by : Shri M M Golvala, AR Respondent by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.05.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Capgemini Technology Services India

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

price at which these are\ntransferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit\nwas made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it\nwas the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the\nAssessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and\naccordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the\ndistributors