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

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer Pricing Officer to delete the addition on account of excessive purchase price as it is already benchmarked once under TNMM/RPM, as under 69. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals), inadvertently dismissed the ground, whereas it was to be allowed following DRP direction. Hence, the based on the above order, adjustment on account of excessive purchase price amounting

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

section 154 of the act for assessment year 2014 – 15 stating that the learned assessing officer could not have made any addition on account of international transaction, which could have only been made by the learned transfer pricing

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

154 dated 30.03.2017 rectified the stment and added further sum of ₹36,86,308/- transfer pricing adjustment and added further sum of stment and added further sum of making the transfer pricing adjustment to ₹5,20,17,599/ making the transfer pricing adjustment to 5,20,17,599/-. 5. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the transfer pricing

SMITH & NEPHEW HEALTHCARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Rajesh Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer was not justified in rejecting assessee’s application filed under section 154 of the Act on the ground

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13), upholding the transfer pricing adjustments in full. The additions made in the final assessment are as under: The additions made in the final assessment are as under: The additions made in the final assessment are as under: S. No. Particulars Particulars Amount (INR) Amount (INR) 1 Income as per return Income as per return Nil 2 Unabsorbed

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer may amend any order passed by him under sub-section (3), and the provisions of section 154

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Hon'ble\nDRP have erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) and 144B of the Act,\nwherein the total income is assessed at Rs.755,61,45,499 in\npursuance to the Directions issued by the DRP, as against Rs.\n215,80,20,610 returned income.\nTRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

154, dated 14.03.2019 and while giving effect to the directions issued by the DRP confined the adjustments/disallowances as under: P a g e | 10 ITA No.7263/Mum/2018 AY. 2014-15 India Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of income-tax-10(1)(1) Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on account of 101,26,73,186 Advertising. Marketing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer pricing adjustment on-account payment of service fees to Cadbury Holding Limited 28 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd 7. During the year under consideration, MIFPL has availed services from Cadbury Schweppes Asia Pacific Pte Limited ('CSAPL') (covered by ground no. 8 to 10) and Cadbury Holding Limited ('CHL') (covered by ground

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

section 154 of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order dated 27th October 2014 of the DRP, we have noticed that upholding the objection of the assessee, the DRP had directed for exclusion of some of the companies selected by the Transfer Pricing

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 35(2AB) then, deduction available\nto the extent of 100% of revenue and capital expenditure must be\nallowed under section 35(a)(i) and 35(1)(iv) of the Act respectively.\nAssessee provided working for the quantum of deduction for this\nalternative claim so as to restrict it to Rs.2,60,79,526/- instead

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Transfer Pricing Officer to benchmark the above transactions as per law. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Page 21 of 29 Castrol India Limited 38. With regard to Ground No. 2.1 and 2.2, the relevant facts are, assessee has two plans in relation to share based payments viz. Share Value Plan and Share Match Plan

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

DIAGEO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing officer has stated that assessee has incurred excess AMP expenditure as compared to comparables and therefore AMP is held to be international transaction. That the TPO applied the bright line test to determine the existence of international transaction. That dispute resolution said that the reimbursement of expenses by the AE to the extent the benefit is derived

DCIT,CIR-6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIAGEO INDIA PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing officer has stated that assessee has incurred excess AMP expenditure as compared to comparables and therefore AMP is held to be international transaction. That the TPO applied the bright line test to determine the existence of international transaction. That dispute resolution said that the reimbursement of expenses by the AE to the extent the benefit is derived