ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 against the revisionary order passed by the CIT(TP)-4, Mumbai [ the Ld CIT ] on 30.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 31.03.2023 ITA No. 2002-05/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 ZENZI PHARMECEUTICAL INDUSTRIES

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 60 day period expires on 30.01.2013 March = 30 days (excluding 31.03.2013) February= 28 days January = 2 days 6 Transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act ought to be 29.01.2013 passed on/or before 7 Date on which Transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(3) is passed 30.01.2013 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

d) Consultancy Fees- 7,85,256/- 5 Ground No. 7- Delay in payment of 1,74,35,513/- employee's ESIC and PF contribution 6 Ground. No. 8 – Non granting of 9,11,44,000/- credit of self assessment 3 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 7 Ground No. 8 – Short credit of tax 5,61,53,656/- deducted

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

5 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now in view of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in (2021) 124 taxamann.com 536, the TPO order is barred by limitation and therefore, the whole transfer pricing adjustment

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 1180/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 17/04/2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

17 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited "International Transaction" as defined under Section 92B of the Act being entered into by the assessee.  As such, the action of the TPO of treating the alleged transfer pricing adjustment as a deemed receivable is patently erroneous in law. If this approach is followed, then every

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

5. It may be noted that in the case of Everest Kanto, the Indian entity had taken a quote from ICICI Bank of India for guarantee. entity had taken a quote from ICICI Bank of India for guarantee. entity had taken a quote from ICICI Bank of India for guarantee. M/s Essar Shipping Ltd M/s Essar Shipping Ltd the actual

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 25/05/2021, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the A.Y. 2016-17, passed in pursuance of direction given by the DRP dated 23/03/2021 u/s.144C(5) of the Act. 2 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 2. Before us several grounds

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 979/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 preferred by the order against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31/03/2021 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144C(13 r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 2 M/s. Tubacex Prakash India

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

d) Ground No. 4 to 4.5: Disallowance of INR 47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act (f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under Section

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two set of cross-appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Since the appeals involved common issues arising from identical factual matrix, the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of a common order. [Assessment Year 2013-2014] ITA No.1149/Mum/2025 [Assessee

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two set of cross-appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Since the appeals involved common issues arising from identical factual matrix, the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of a common order. [Assessment Year 2013-2014] ITA No.1149/Mum/2025 [Assessee

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

5 & 9 of the income- tax Act, 1961, thus establishing that the liability to deduct tax at source under section 195 arase which the assessee failed to discharge?" 13. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

17,30,982/- -. In the transfer pricing study report, the transaction was benchmarked using pricing study report, the transaction was benchmarked using pricing study report, the transaction was benchmarked using Parishi Diamonds 3 comparable un-controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate method. The relevant conclusion

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as the department against final assessment order dated 26/02/2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of direction given by the ld. DRP vide order dated 29/12/2015. 2. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee