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

151/- On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed other additions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act. 3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

151. The records, authority, and jurisdiction all stood vested in the PCIT–Central-2 and the DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai. 21. In light of the factual matrix and legal authorities placed before us, the conclusion is inescapable: the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 by the ACIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai, was vitiated

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

transfer price of the international transaction entered in to by the appellant with its associated enterprise by invoking the provisions of Section 92CA(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer, relying on the direction of DRP, erred in treating the onsite software development services

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

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

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

2,35,15,11,079/-. The\ncase of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the\nassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the\nAssessee has entered into international transactions with its\nAssociated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, a reference was\nmade under Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for the determination of Arm's Length Price

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

2,35,15,11,079/-. The\ncase of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the\nassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the\nAssessee has entered into international transactions with its\nAssociated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, a reference was\nmade under Section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for the determination of Arm's Length Price

ASST CIT RG 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CRISIL LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given\nbelow:\n4.\nMold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek')\nFunctionally Different:\n4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO\nservices to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of\nthe paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural\nengineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

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

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)

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 ₹ 8,151,229 has been treated as expenditure attributable to earning of dividend income and amount of ₹ 413,198,013 has been claimed as exempt under section