EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

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

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

158/-. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also held that the above payments resulting into substantial beneficial ownership in the hand of the respondent becomes deemed dividend under Section

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

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

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

158/-. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also held that the above payments resulting into substantial beneficial ownership in the hand of the respondent becomes deemed dividend under Section

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Transfer Pricing Officer found that assessee has charged 0.10% to Citi Group Global Market Limited, UK at the rate of 0.10%. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain that why benchmarking of this transaction should not be made by adopting the rate charged to FIIs. The assessee objected to the same stating that there are functional differences in a respect

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment. As a result, grounds No. 2 to 6 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed. 16. The issue arising on ground No. 7, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to levy of penalty on account of taxation of interest income as income from other sources. 17. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED ('FETSCS')[FEDERAL EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH FETSCS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER1,2013],MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2011-12

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as understood by Sec. 2(26) of the Act and consequently, there does not exist

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

158 Adjustment 14.3 The Ld CIT(A), following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier years, deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment made on Share Application money against which Preference Shares had been allotted. He noticed that the assessee has got back part of share application money to the tune of Rs.45.00 crores on 1st July

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

158 Adjustment 14.3 The Ld CIT(A), following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier years, deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment made on Share Application money against which Preference Shares had been allotted. He noticed that the assessee has got back part of share application money to the tune of Rs.45.00 crores on 1st July

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

158 Adjustment 14.3 The Ld CIT(A), following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier years, deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment made on Share Application money against which Preference Shares had been allotted. He noticed that the assessee has got back part of share application money to the tune of Rs.45.00 crores on 1st July

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

158 Adjustment 14.3 The Ld CIT(A), following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the earlier years, deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment made on Share Application money against which Preference Shares had been allotted. He noticed that the assessee has got back part of share application money to the tune of Rs.45.00 crores on 1st July

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PIZER LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit Vs M/S Pfizer Ltd. Cir-8(2), Pfizer Centre 5, R. No.216-A Patel Estate, Aayakar Bhavan Off. S.V. Road, M.K.Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400102 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacp3334M

section 92C r/w rule 10B, it is clear that the arm's length price in relation to a particular international transaction has to be determined by following any one of the most appropriate methods prescribed therein. Therefore, the first stage is selection of most appropriate method. For doing so all relevant details relating to a particular 13 M/s Pfizer

INDIA MEDRONIC PRIVATE LIMTITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground of appeal no

Transfer Pricing Officer and the Assessing Officer wherein in the subject itself it was clearly stated that CHPL stood merged with IMPL. Vide letter dated 17.11.2017, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle-1(2) [which also fall under the Range - Corporate Circle 1(2)], was specifically informed that CHPL has ceased to exist with effect from 26.08.2016 and there

CSAV GROUP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment pursuant to learned DRP‟s directions. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 37. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we find that the delay is in respect of realisation of invoices raised by the assessee for provisions of services to the associated enterprises. Thus, the delay of receivables

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Though it has been submitted by the assessee that the payment for purchase of software is for acquiring of copyrighted article and not for transfer of any right in the copyright and payment cannot be construed

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given below: 4. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek') Functionally Different: 4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO services to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of the paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural engineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing adjustment, in seriatim, are given below: 4. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. ('Mold-Tek') Functionally Different: 4.1. Mold-Tek is engaged in providing structural engineering KPO services to various clients such as PEB, Rebar, etc. (Refer page no. 429 of the paperbook). The Appellant wishes to submit that structural engineering services are a branch of civil engineering services that