HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing addition of ₹1,06, 1,06,65, 264/-. 9. Against the order of the Against the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing addition of ₹1,06, 1,06,65, 264/-. 9. Against the order of the Against the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various grounds preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and raised various

UNILIVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

Transfer Pricing Officer and the Explanation to section 144C(8) of the Act has further clarified the position. He submitted, the Explanation having been brought to the statute with retrospective effect would be applicable to the impugned assessment year. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, when the Explanation has clarified the intention of legislature, by interpreting the provision in a different

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) for determining the arms length price (‘ALP’) of the reported international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (‘AE’), after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA of the Act dated 31.12.2012 proposing an adjustment of Rs.142,80,14,163

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

transfer prices in relation to the transactions of import of goods by the assessee from its AEs during the year under consideration. Our aforesaid observations are fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 75 taxmann.com 31 (Bom). Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order

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

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

163. 013. With respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act the learned dispute resolution panel noted that the learned assessing officer has correctly disallowed invoking the provisions of section 14 A of the act. With respect to the quantum of disallowance, the assessee has disallowed a sum of ₹ 7,530,532/– under section

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

163. 013. With respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act the learned dispute resolution panel noted that the learned assessing officer has correctly disallowed invoking the provisions of section 14 A of the act. With respect to the quantum of disallowance, the assessee has disallowed a sum of ₹ 7,530,532/– under section

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

163. Arm's length service suppliers would usually expect to recover their costs plus an element of profit. However, in determining an Arm's Length charge for service, one must also take into account the economic alternatives available to the recipient of the service. Often, the price the recipient is willing to pay for the service does not exceed

FIREFLY MARKET RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONA E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

163,877 (comprising of support services availed of INR 6,751,261 and allocation of costs of INR 7,412,616) under Chapter X of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under other provisions of the Act Legal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO exceeded his jurisdiction

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 3(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

163. Arm's length service suppliers would usually expect to recover their costs plus an element of profit. However, in determining an Arm's Length charge for service, one must also take into account the economic alternatives available to the recipient of the service. Often, the price the recipient is willing to pay for the service does not exceed

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

section 80 HHE. It was further held that thus the expenses which are to be excluded from the export turnover, would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing total turnover. 11.3. Respectfully following the same, the ground No.7 raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2012-13 is dismissed. 12. The ground No.5 raised by the assessee is with regard

RED HAT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. AADL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Section 144C (10) and 144C (13) of the Act, thereby, rendering the assessment proceeding vitiated and invalid in law. 2. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment-INR 25,29,89,726 Adjustment relating to international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty and service fee (subscription segment)-INR 14,35,88,058 2.1 Without prejudice, the Ld. AO [along with

TATA CONSULTANCE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

163,159 28,468 17.45% Wipro Ltd. 41,210 32,788 8,422 25.69% TCS India 74,857 53,940 20,917 38.78% On the basis of the above comparison carried out, the assessee has considered its transactions to be at ALP. 7. During the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the firm belief

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed upward transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,05,43,246/- consisting of transfer pricing adjustment of INR 54,62,391 and INR 50,80,855/- in respect of goods exported from Thane Plant and Nagda Plant, respectively. The Assessing Officer proposed the aforesaid transfer pricing addition in the Draft Assessment Order, dated

NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

DY CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVATEUR ELECTRICALS AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise

DCIT 3(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

163,159 28,468 17.45% Wipro Ltd. 41,210 32,788 8,422 25.69% TCS India 74,857 53,940 20,917 38.78% On the basis of the above comparison carried out, the assessee has considered its transactions to be at ALP. 7. During the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the firm belief