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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

160,10,63,978. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while verifying the return of income filed by the assessee along with the financial statements noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of State taxes paid in overseas countries. It was submitted that these taxes were paid in USA and Canada. It was submitted by the assessee that

ROLLS ROYCE MARINE INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

section 92CA(1) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer, on a perusal of the transfer pricing study report filed by the assessee, found that the assessee has adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method with Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) to benchmark the transaction relating to the provision of Application

PRUDENTIAL PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

pricing officer analyzed the assessee’s submission as under: As per Section 92F, transaction includes arrangement, understanding or action in concert. In the present case, there was an agreement between AE of the assessee Prudential UK, and Capita UK by way of which Prudential UK was to give outsourcing business to the tune of GBP 722 million

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment/additions/variations is also bad in law and illegal. 2. EXPENSES DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATIONS IN INDIA - RS. 86,99,22,880/- (Pages 5- 31 of CIT(A)'s Order) 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts to confirm the disallowance towards part of the expenses directly attributable to operations in India. 2.2 The learned

SYCOM CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11

section 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 30/10/2014, whereby the TP adjustment to the ALP of the assessee’s international transactions was re-worked/re- computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer at Rs.10,72,97,970/-. The 4 Assessing Officer accordingly proceeded to complete the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act vide order dated

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 31.03.2015 reference as per section 153(4) of the act 3. Time limit for passing the order under section 92CA(3A) 60 days of the Act 160

FIRST CREDIT ITES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT.DY/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E -ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

Transfer Pricing Officer. 011. The learned Departmental Representative on comparability analysis supported the orders of the lower authorities. 012. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that assessee is providing services to its enterprises in terms of agreement dated 1st April 2015. Assessee owns and operates call center having trained

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price on the date of retirement. It was the contention of the assessee that there is no need to substitute the market value in respect of units mentioned at S.No. 3 to 8 as per above statement as rate adopted for transfer to retiring partner was Rs.1932.46 per square feet , however, in respect of unit

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price on the date of retirement. It was the contention of the assessee that there is no need to substitute the market value in respect of units mentioned at S.No. 3 to 8 as per above statement as rate adopted for transfer to retiring partner was Rs.1932.46 per square feet , however, in respect of unit

BOMBAY RAYON HOLDINGS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

160 ITD Nl M/s. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., (Kolkata Tribunal.) (SB) This case of Kolkata Tribunal has been decided by the Spl. Bench of ITAT. 8. Furthermore, the TPO objected that without prejudice to the argument that business/commercial expediency is not applicable in Transfer Pricing jurisprudence, assessee has also failed to demonstrate the business interest and existence of business

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONA FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DILHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing valuation adjustment of the contract acquired WCIL and allowed entire depreciation claimed on customer contract acquired by WNS India from WNS UK and WCIL There is no material change in facts & circumstances in the year under consideration. 16. On account of the acquisition of customer contracts, the Assessee acquired a commercial right i.e. right to receive all revenues

DIAMOND DYE-CHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

section 92CA, thus the transfer-pricing additions made in the assessment order dated 31St December 2013, are liable to be deleted. 4. The above grounds are purely questions of law and go to the root of jurisdiction and do not require any new facts. 5. The Appellant, therefore, prays that: a) the Appellant be allowed to raise the above additional

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

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

Transfer Pricing Grounds 5. erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs 45,85,659 on intangible assets acquired from WNS Global Services (UK) Limited by the Appellant contending that the rights acquired by the Appellant on acquisition of customer contracts do not fall under the definition of intangible assets under Section 32(1) of the Act. 6. erred in enhancing

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

Transfer Pricing Grounds 5. erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs 45,85,659 on intangible assets acquired from WNS Global Services (UK) Limited by the Appellant contending that the rights acquired by the Appellant on acquisition of customer contracts do not fall under the definition of intangible assets under Section 32(1) of the Act. 6. erred in enhancing

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

KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92B of the Act. In this regard, the contention of the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer was, since the assessee has incurred the AMP expenditure for products manufactured and sold by it in India, it does not come within the purview of international transaction. Further, the assessee has also submitted that since there is no arrangement/agreement between