ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Pricing -II), Mumbai who passed the relevant Transfer\nPricing Order had legal authority to act as section 2(28D)\nspecifies that Joint Commissioner includes Additional\nPage No. | 28\nCommissioner. The Ld CIT(A) erred in disregarding the detailed\nsubmissions made by the appellant that notification No S.O.\n994(E), [NO. 278/2004], dated 1-9- 2004_issued by the CBDT

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

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

Pricing -II), Mumbai who passed the relevant Transfer\nPricing Order had legal authority to act as section 2(28D)\nspecifies that Joint Commissioner includes Additional\nCommissioner. The Ld CIT(A) erred in disregarding the detailed\nsubmissions made by the appellant that notification No S.O.\n994(E), [NO. 278/2004], dated 1-9- 2004_issued by the CBDT\ndo not include authorisation

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

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

Pricing -II), Mumbai who passed the relevant Transfer\nPricing Order had legal authority to act as section 2(28D)\nspecifies that Joint Commissioner includes Additional\nCommissioner. The Ld CIT(A) erred in disregarding the detailed\nsubmissions made by the appellant that notification No S.O.\n994(E), [NO. 278/2004], dated 1-9- 2004_issued by the CBDT\ndo not include authorisation

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

Pricing -II), Mumbai who passed the relevant Transfer\nPricing Order had legal authority to act as section 2(28D)\nspecifies that Joint Commissioner includes Additional\nPage No. 27\nCommissioner. The Ld CIT(A) erred in disregarding the detailed\nsubmissions made by the appellant that notification No S.O.\n994(E), [NO. 278/2004], dated 1-9- 2004 issued by the CBDT

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, is erroneous on facts and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Panel erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO in carrying transfer pricing adjustments to the below international transactions: a. Provision

OETIKER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 144C(13) of the Act making the following additions/disallowances: S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1 Transfer Pricing Adjustment 4,14,50,089/- - Import from AE – INR 3,19,07,773 - IT Services Charge – INR 41,75,987 - Royalty Payment – INR 53,66,329 2 Loss on restatement of External Commercial 4,04,64,260/- Borrowing (ECB) Liability outstanding

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

pricing adjustment vis-à-vis imputing interest on delayed realisation of sale proceeds from its AEs. The Appellant charged interest at the rate of 6% on the realisation of sale proceeds from its AEs for the entire credit period extended to the AEs of 150/180 days. The TPO held that interest chargeable by the Appellant on the outstanding balances should

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

160\n1,53,50,57,500 16,16,18,080 17,98,62,990\nNew Capital\n(in number of\n5 shares)\n3,17,35,76,\n158\n10,000 4,04,450\n89,93,150\nNew Capital\n6 (in Rupees)\n31,73,57,6\n1,580\n1,00,000\n40,40,450\n8,99,31.495\nMethod of\n7 Reduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SIEMENS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determination of Arms’ Length Price of International Transactions entered into by the assessee. In Form No.3CEB, the assessee reported the following international transaction entered with its Associated Enterprises in India: - Sr. No. Name of the Associated Enterprises Amount in Rs. 1. Siemens Limited

JINDAL DRUGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE, 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 2,87,575/-, vide order dated 28.01.2021, passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act as per following table: Inv. Date Qty Rate Total Bench Party referred Rate Adj No. Mark Diff price 154 13/09 3,000 160

VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013–14, in pursuance of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 28/09/2017. 2 Volkswagen Aktiengeselschaft 2. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal. However, during the course of the hearing, the assessee pressed only the additional ground being Ground No. 17, which goes

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

transfer pricing study report (TPSR). The assessee adopted transaction net margin method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. The assessee selected 6 comparable companies. The TPO rejected 4 such comparable company and included 8 more comparable companies as recorded in para 8 of order of TPO. The TPO ultimately selected 11 following comparable companies and worked out nil margin average

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

transfer pricing study report (TPSR). The assessee adopted transaction net margin method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. The assessee selected 6 comparable companies. The TPO rejected 4 such comparable company and included 8 more comparable companies as recorded in para 8 of order of TPO. The TPO ultimately selected 11 following comparable companies and worked out nil margin average

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for an examination of international transactions entered into by the\nassessee. Subsequently, the return was revised on 21.02.2014 disclosing a total\nincome of Rs. 4560,04,33,250/-, while the course of assessment proceedings\nwas in progress. The TPO vide his order dated 23.01.2014 had recommended\nT.P. Adjustment of Rs. 2,61,09,160

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer\n(TPO) for an examination of international transactions entered into by the\nassessee. Subsequently, the return was revised on 21.02.2014 disclosing a total\nincome of Rs. 4560,04,33,250/-, while the course of assessment proceedings\nwas in progress. The TPO vide his order dated 23.01.2014 had recommended\nT.P. Adjustment of Rs. 2,61,09,160

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case\nmay be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh\nassessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as\nthe case may be,], such effect shall be given within a period of three\nmonths from the end of the month in which order under section 250\nor section 254 or section

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing officer ("TPO") in his order u/s. 92CA(3) 5. Assessment of lower book profit by Computation of Income 3.07 not reducing principal portion of lease rent Excess Deduction u/s 10AA in respect of Jamnagar Refinery 7.0 The first issue is regarding excess deduction allowed u/s 10AA of the Act by treating the year under consideration as 5th year