VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

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

192 being the Singapore Tax\npaid as defined under Article 2501 of the of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\nbetween India and Singapore.\nGrounds related to Transfer Pricing:\n2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations,\n2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not\ndeleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. 15.1. During the relevant previous year, the AEs of the Assessee incurred certain expenses relating to salary and other related costs of the employees who were seconded to the Assessee and who worked under the supervision, management and control of the Assessee. Subsequently the Assessee reimbursed these expenses incurred

ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C (2) of the act. With respect to the arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee, he following the decision of his predecessor in earlier assessment year held that corporate guarantee fees of 0.5% charged to its associated enterprise based on the past action of the learned transfer-pricing officer, it is at arm’s-length. Therefore

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

192 being the Singapore Tax paid as defined under Article 2501 of the of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. Grounds related to Transfer Pricing: 2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations, 2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not deleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,71,73,770. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) M/s. HSBC Asset Management (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.5830/Mum./2013 ITA no.5835/Mum./2013 vide impugned order partially upheld the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

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

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

192 being the Singapore Tax\npaid as defined under Article 2501 of the of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\nbetween India and Singapore.\nGrounds related to Transfer Pricing:\n2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations,\n2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not\ndeleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was made in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transaction, the assessee is having with its 4 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO, vide order dated 31/10/2016 proposed a total adjustment of Rs.253,73,00,819/- as per the break up given below

ABOTT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shric.N.Prasad, Jm & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am

Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of these Central Services Charges are allowed for all the assessment years. CORPORATE TAX ISSUES ITA No.7595/Mum/2012 : Asst. Year 2008-2009 26. The Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is with regard to the action of the ld. DRP in upholding the disallowance made u/s 14A of the I.T.Act r.w.r.8D of I.T.Rules in the total

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition of\nINR 4,14,86,237/-.\n15.2 Having heard the rival submission and on perusal of the record\nwe find that this is a recurring issue. Both the sides agreed that\nfor the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, in identical facts\nand circumstances, this issue was restored to the file of\nTPO/Assessing Officer with directions

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition of\nINR 4,14,86,237/-.\n15.2. Having heard the rival submission and on perusal of the record\nwe find that this is a recurring issue. Both the sides agreed that\nfor the Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10, in identical facts\nand circumstances, this issue was restored to the file of\nTPO/Assessing Officer with directions

BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer himself admits that the assessee provides routine software development service to its AEs as a captive service provider. Whereas, Infosys Technologies Ltd. does not stand on the same footing. It provides end–to–end solution with regard to the development of the software. Further, the turnover of the assessee compared to the turnover of this comparable

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing provisions prescribed procedure for arriving at arm’s length price in a systematic manner in the Act. The TPO has rigorously applied various filters as applicable. There cannot be exceptions on application of filters as to industry class or to any specific assessee. The DRP justified turn over filter, export turnover filter, RPT filter by referring various case

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

192 being the Singapore Tax\npaid as defined under Article 2501 of the of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement\nbetween India and Singapore.\nGrounds related to Transfer Pricing:\n2. Transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations,\n2.1 The Id. CTT (A) erred in law, on facts and in circumstances of the case in not\ndeleting the transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made