ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment in relation to provision of software development services and intra group services. Beside this, assessee has also raised various corporate grounds, which are as under:- Sr. Particulars Amount in No. Rs. 1 Ground No. 3- Grant of lesser 48,53,467/- deduction under section 10AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') 2 Ground

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

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for telecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of eligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible business as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\" Thus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the Act are much wider in scope as compared

DIALOGIC NETWORKS (INDIA) P. LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhit(Tp)A No.1324/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Dialogic Networks (India) Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Pride Purple Coronet, S.No.287/2, Baner Road, Opp Food Bazar, Pune Pan:Aabcv9446M ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cir.3(3), Mumbai. .... Respondent Appellant By : S/Shri Ajit Tolani/Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

156/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.46,21,652/-. In the ensuing assessment, it was noticed that assessee had undertaken international transactions within the meaning of section 92B of the Act with its Associated Enterprise (AE) and, therefore, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

Section 37 of the Act and genuineness of the expenditure?\"\"\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee, an Indian company, and is a part of U.T. Worldwide Group U.K. It is submitted that the assessee belongs to a group that is world leader in international flight forwarding business. The assessee is engaged in the business

FIL CAPITAL ADVISORS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2010–11, in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Brief facts are, the assessee a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of FIL Mauritius, is engaged in providing non–binding investment 2 FIL Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. advisory services

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a part of Medtronic Inc., a USA based global leader in medical

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

Section 37 of the Act and\ngenuneness of the expenditure?\"\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee, an Indian company, and is a part of U.T.\nWorldwide Group U.K. It is submitted that the assessee belongs\nto a group that is world leader in international flight forwarding\nbusiness. The assessee is engaged in the business

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

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 ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

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

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for\ntelecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of\neligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible\nbusiness as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\"\nThus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the\nAct are much wider in scope as compared

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

156 ITD 847 (Del-Trib) has held that deduction for\ntelecommunication services is allowable in respect of “profits of\neligible business and not restricted to profits derived from eligible\nbusiness as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act.\"\nThus, the provisions of sub-section (2A) of Section 80IA of the\nAct are much wider in scope as compared

S.S. ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

SS ORAL HYGEINE PRODUCTS P.LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) ( NOW ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. S.S ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order and notice under Section 156 of the Act was passed in the name of non-existing company

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section u/s 92CC. Thus the determination under APA are nothing but transfer pricing adjustments based on ALP. 8. It was open to the assessee to join as a party to APA which it chose not do so. The APA has no binding force on assessee GIA Inc. It is up to the assessee whether to remit any funds

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section u/s 92CC. Thus the determination under APA are nothing but transfer pricing adjustments based on ALP. 8. It was open to the assessee to join as a party to APA which it chose not do so. The APA has no binding force on assessee GIA Inc. It is up to the assessee whether to remit any funds

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section u/s 92CC. Thus the determination under APA are nothing but transfer pricing adjustments based on ALP. 8. It was open to the assessee to join as a party to APA which it chose not do so. The APA has no binding force on assessee GIA Inc. It is up to the assessee whether to remit any funds

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section u/s 92CC. Thus the determination under APA are nothing but transfer pricing adjustments based on ALP. 8. It was open to the assessee to join as a party to APA which it chose not do so. The APA has no binding force on assessee GIA Inc. It is up to the assessee whether to remit any funds