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

155 TTJ 697. 21. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and DRP. 22. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The disputed addition on account of commission on direct sales made by the AE to third customer in India

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIA MEDTRONIC P. LTD, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

155 TTJ 697. 23. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 24. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The disputed addition on account of commission on direct sales made by the AE to third customer

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C (2) of the act. With respect to the arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee, he following the decision of his predecessor in earlier assessment year held that corporate guarantee fees of 0.5% charged to its associated enterprise based on the past action of the learned transfer-pricing officer, it is at arm’s-length. Therefore

HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

section 14A of the Act of Rs. 6,53,54,313/-. Accordingly, the total income was computed at a loss of Rs. 155,43,60,230/-while passing draft assessment order. 011. Assessee filed objection before the learned dispute resolution panel – 1 (WZ), Mumbai who passed direction on 16 August 2017 confirming action of the learned Transfer Pricing

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 adjustments, he also made\na corporate tax disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)\namounting to Rs.8,82,155

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee for the assessment year

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer pricing, incorporated the adjustment proposed by Ld.TPO. In furtherance, the Ld.AO also computed; • Restricted the disallowance under section 80IA at Rs.200,22,69,287/- • disallowance u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D amounting to Rs. 14,85,775/- and; • disallowed depreciation claimed on capitalisation expenses for the work done by M/s. Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. [known as Sancia Global Infraprojects Limited

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Section 144C(5) of the Act. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. 1. Ground No. 1: Transfer pricing (TP") adjustment in respect of purchase of equity shares of Sutures India Private Limited (SIPL) and Quality Needles Private Limited ("QNPL') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred

NGC NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Ngc Network (India) Pvt. Ltd Acit Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, V. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aabcn1401A

transfer pricing regulations. Your Appellant prays that it should be granted adjustments to account for differences in the functional and risk profile of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the AO of not considering that the adjustment to the arm's length price

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. NGC NETWORK (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4534/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Ngc Network (India) Pvt. Ltd Acit Range- 11(1) R.No. 439, Star House, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, V. M.K Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aabcn1401A

transfer pricing regulations. Your Appellant prays that it should be granted adjustments to account for differences in the functional and risk profile of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the AO of not considering that the adjustment to the arm's length price

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

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and computed the arm’s- length price of the guarantee fee holding that the rates charged by the assessee while giving guarantee ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton Ltd.;A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 to a foreign bank for the facilitation of loan

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and computed the arm’s- length price of the guarantee fee holding that the rates charged by the assessee while giving guarantee ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton Ltd.;A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 to a foreign bank for the facilitation of loan

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and computed the arm’s- length price of the guarantee fee holding that the rates charged by the assessee while giving guarantee ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton Ltd.;A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 to a foreign bank for the facilitation of loan

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and computed the arm’s- length price of the guarantee fee holding that the rates charged by the assessee while giving guarantee ITA Nos. 1745/MUM/2016, 2069 & 7166/MUM/2017, 6560/MUM2018 Graves Cotton Ltd.;A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 to a foreign bank for the facilitation of loan

PARADIGM GEOPHYSICAL (I) P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1878/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Paradigm The Dcit, Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Geophysical (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 614, B-Wing, Mumbai-400 020 Rupa Solitaire, Sector-1, Millennium Business Park, Thane-Belapur Road, Mahape, Navi Mumbai -400 710 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 8903C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Niraj Sheth Shri Ayush Rajani Shri N.K. Chand ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, the Appellant has filed an appeal with the ITA T. B. Appellant's contentions raised before the Hon'ble bench B.1.1 Rejection of audited segmental results and following an entity level approach and not restricting additions only to international transactions. 1) As mentioned above, the TPO rejected the audited segmental accounts

DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

section 902C(2) which provides for (+/-) 5% variation from 5% variation from the arm’s length price. the arm’s length price. He submitted that the rate at which the international transaction He submitted that the rate at which the international transaction He submitted that the rate at which the international transaction has been entered into by the assessee