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

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

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

191 (Bom) wherein at para 8 thereof it was observed that: - “8. .......... 3.4. We find that the issue under consideration of applying Transfer Pricing Provisions on ‘issue of shares’ has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Vodafone India Services Private Limited in Writ Petition number

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by TPO. 7. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, as per the pre–condition of the tender floated by ONGC, multiple companies of the Transocean Group could not have participated in the bid for supply of rig and off–shore drilling work. In this context, the learned Authorised Representative referred to the provisions of section

ARKAY LOGISTICS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

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

191 TTJ (Del.) 259. 12. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, even assuming that the assessee had selected TNMM over CUP method, if the method selected by the assessee is not the most appropriate method, the assessee certainly can change the method to a more appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision

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

191; the then Indo-Korea tax treaty, in short], provides that "The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 80IC Unit I Rs.6,25,43,786/- Unit II Rs,21,85,37,371/- Rs. 2,45,454/- (5) Addition on account of difference in AIR 4. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order against which the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP gave marginal relief to the assessee with respect of depreciation claimed on marketing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 80IC Unit I Rs.6,25,43,786/- Unit II Rs,21,85,37,371/- Rs. 2,45,454/- (5) Addition on account of difference in AIR 4. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order against which the assessee raised objections before the DRP. The DRP gave marginal relief to the assessee with respect of depreciation claimed on marketing

TH BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – Circle - 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Pratik Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Udoal Raj Singh

transfer pricing adjustment in relation to reimbursement paid. We find that the underlying facts and the reasoning given in this adjustment are identical to the reasoning given for the issues raised in Ground No. 2 and 4 above. We have followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2008-09 while disposing Ground No. 4 for identical reason

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

191” 9.4. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that whether the corporate guarantee is invoked or not the assessee provides guarantee to its AE’s. It amounts to be international transaction and determination of arms length price is necessary. He placed reliance on amendment by way of insertion of sub clause (c) to sub section 1 of section 92B, that

ESSAR PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

section (5) of Sec. 115V-1. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the ship management services provided by the assessee to its AE, viz. ESLL forms part of its presumptive income determined as per the provisions of tonnage tax scheme contemplated in Chapter XII-G, therefore, no addition

M/S GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RANGE 5 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal raising 16 grounds of appeals. Ground No.1 & 2 The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted made a statement under instruction that he would not be pressing Ground No. 1 and Ground No.2. Ground No.1

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GREATSHIP(INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules. 9. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1 to 5 10. Ground No. 1 to 5 raised by the Revenue are directed against the order

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

191,78,79,648/- Transfer pricing grounds: 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ TPO pursuant to the directions of the DRP, erred in making an adjustment of Rs.60,96,16,288 in respect of the international transactions, alleging that the same to be not at arm's length in terms

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

191,78,79,648/- Transfer pricing grounds: 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ TPO pursuant to the directions of the DRP, erred in making an adjustment of Rs.60,96,16,288 in respect of the international transactions, alleging that the same to be not at arm's length in terms

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SYNGENTA INDIA LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

191,78,79,648/- Transfer pricing grounds: 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ TPO pursuant to the directions of the DRP, erred in making an adjustment of Rs.60,96,16,288 in respect of the international transactions, alleging that the same to be not at arm's length in terms

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer. 51. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As regards the claim of the assessee that provision of 39 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Corporate Guarantee in respect of loans availed by the AEs do not form part of international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable to accept

THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Transfer Pricing Officer to consider the additional submissions/documents made by the assessee before Ld DRP and determine the Arm’s Length Price as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purpose. 26. With regard to Ground No. 4 which