ROLLS ROYCE MARINE INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 92CA(1) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer, on a perusal of the transfer pricing study report filed by the assessee, found that the assessee has adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method with Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) to benchmark the transaction relating to the provision of Application

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

price of sales i.e. export of finished goods length price of sales i.e. export of finished goods length price of sales i.e. export of finished goods was under determination and therefore same was under determination and therefore same cannot be taken as cannot be taken as numerator for profit level indicator. The numerator for profit level indicator

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LANXESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

price of sales i.e. export of finished goods length price of sales i.e. export of finished goods length price of sales i.e. export of finished goods was under determination and therefore same was under determination and therefore same cannot be taken as cannot be taken as numerator for profit level indicator. The numerator for profit level indicator

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

151,78,06,000. The resultant shortfall of ` 28,50,48,145 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

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 7,14,48,533/-. In the said assessment order, there is a specific observation made by the ld AO that the income of the assessee life insurance company was determined in accordance with section 44 read with First Schedule to the Act. 4.3. Later this assessment was sought to be reopened

ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE SOLUTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order adding the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Being aggrieved with the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee was convinced that

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price which is more reliable\nshould be used. Therefore, in our view, IEX rates for these reasons cannot be said\nto be an external cup available for invoking the provisions of first proviso to Section\n92C (2) of the act.\n10. In assessee's case CUP method is applied where rate at which GEB supplies\nelectricity to the non-eligible

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GUPSHUP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer pricing order ("TP order) 30.01.2015 under section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed. 10. Last date to pass final assessment order considering 31.03.2015 assessee is not an eligible assessee 11. Date on which final assessment order was passed 30.04.2015 4. The ld AR also placed reliance on several decisions of the coordinate bench as listed below

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

151/-\n3.1. On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment\nOrder under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act\nincorporating the above transfer pricing

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

151/-\n3.1. On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment\nOrder under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act\nincorporating the above transfer pricing

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer" means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board17 to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons.]' Provisions of section 2 (28C) of the Act defines the Joint Commissioner means a person appointed

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)

151 ITD 353/43 taxmann.com 314 (Mum. - Trib.). However, the Transfer Pricing Officer summarily rejected and 8 Omniactive Health Technologies Limited held that the application of TNMM is the method of last resort when the comparable price method cannot be applied. However, he noted that in the assessee's case since the comparable price for the same or similar products

HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HTMT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4933/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Appellant Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–8(2), Mumbai आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4950/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(2), Mumbai V/S Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Respondent Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Batik Poddar A/W Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh Shah रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

section 10A which was sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved of the aforesaid decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee is in appeal before us raising five grounds. 5. Ground no.1, being general in nature, no specific adjudication is required. 6. Ground no.2, which relates to transfer pricing adjustment on provisions of ITES is being dealt with herein

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

151 ITD 353/43 taxmann.com 314 (Mum. - Trib.). However, the Transfer Pricing Officer summarily rejected and held that the application of TNMM is the method of last resort when the comparable price method cannot be applied. However, he noted that in the assessee's case since the comparable price for the same or similar products to the third parties has been

INFINITI WHOLESALE LTD ( FORMERLY KNWON AS WOOLWONTHS WHOLESALE (INDIA) P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

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

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner namely:— (a) Comparable uncontrolled price method, by which- (i) The price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92CA (3) of the act dated 31/10/2013. pg. 7 10. The draft assessment order included the above transfer pricing adjustment. 11. Further the learned assessing officer noted that assessee company has shown an amount of ₹ 423,053,242/– as dividend income out of which a sum of ₹ 8,151

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92CA (3) of the act dated 31/10/2013. pg. 7 10. The draft assessment order included the above transfer pricing adjustment. 11. Further the learned assessing officer noted that assessee company has shown an amount of ₹ 423,053,242/– as dividend income out of which a sum of ₹ 8,151

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92CA (3) of the act dated 31/10/2013. pg. 7 10. The draft assessment order included the above transfer pricing adjustment. 11. Further the learned assessing officer noted that assessee company has shown an amount of ₹ 423,053,242/– as dividend income out of which a sum of ₹ 8,151