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

price including duties and taxes, freight in verse and other expenditure which are directly attributable to the acquisition are required to be included in the cost of purchases. He further submitted that that identical issue arose in case of ITA number 3035/M/2017 for assessment year 2012 – 13 dated 3/6/2019 wherein the coordinate bench has held that for the purpose

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

price including duties and taxes, freight in verse and other expenditure which are directly attributable to the acquisition are required to be included in the cost of purchases. He further submitted that that identical issue arose in case of ITA number 3035/M/2017 for assessment year 2012 – 13 dated 3/6/2019 wherein the coordinate bench has held that for the purpose

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Transfer Pricing, 4 (1) (2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) to examine arm’s-length price of those international transactions. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 4. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) on 31/10/2019 dealing with the international transactions as under: – i. On verification of Form No. 3CEB, the TPO noted that

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

FRANKLIN WARDCORPP INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDLL./JT/ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 1st November, 2019. Based on this, the draft assessment order was passed on 19th December, 2019. 05. Assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed direction on 18th March, 2021. The directions were further rectified on 15th April, 2021. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel held that

FRANKLIN WARDCORPP INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/DIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

Section 92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 1st November, 2019. Based on this, the draft assessment order was passed on 19th December, 2019. 05. Assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed direction on 18th March, 2021. The directions were further rectified on 15th April, 2021. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel held that

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE JT CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONA), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in\nholding that it would amount to short-term capital loss to the\nassessee. Thus, the loss was allowed even if share application\nmoney paid by the assessee was forfeited due to default in\npayment and balance money of allotment. The relevant\nobservation of the High Court reads as under

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of interest undercharged on the loan given to AEs. 4. The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing information technology solutions to banks and financial institutions worldwide. 5. Certain common issues are urged in these appeals. We shall first take up the common issues urged by both the parties. The first common issue

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment on account of the aforesaid international transaction.\nHowever, the AO, by placing reliance upon the findings of its predecessor in\nassessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, held that the legitimate\nright to receive corresponding income (Royalty) cannot be waived off through\nan arbitrary decision, particularly till such time as the original written