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

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

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus entire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant, Final assessment order passed is time barred 1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section

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

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 92B, the hon'ble ITAT (Hyd) bench decision in Four Soft Ltd (supra) is not ITA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd applicable. It may be mentioned that the hon'ble ITAT in a recent judgement in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (ITA No 8597/Mum/2010 for AY 2006-07) has confirmed the adjustment on account

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

Pricing Officer were not on the basis of any detailed search process.\nAt least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer\nPricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental\nRepresentative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the\nimpugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

193-196 of the paper book. Out of the total sum credited in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India in the sum of USD 110376142.02, a sum of USD 110 million represent receipt of principal portion of the loan and interest of USD 3,76,247 after reducing bank charges of USD 105. 2.2. The monies received

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

193-196 of the paper book. Out of the total sum credited in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India in the sum of USD 110376142.02, a sum of USD 110 million represent receipt of principal portion of the loan and interest of USD 3,76,247 after reducing bank charges of USD 105. 2.2. The monies received

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

193-196 of the paper book. Out of the total sum credited in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India in the sum of USD 110376142.02, a sum of USD 110 million represent receipt of principal portion of the loan and interest of USD 3,76,247 after reducing bank charges of USD 105. 2.2. The monies received

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

193 equity shares of SIPL by SIPL to the 1 Draft Red Herring Prospectus placed at page 1607 to 1611 of the paper-book 11 Appellant in discharge of the above consideration of INR 4,49,05,01,600/- 9.11 The TPO passed an order, dated 30/01/2021, under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposing transfer pricing

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

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

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 ()

price is necessary. He placed reliance on amendment by way of insertion of sub clause (c) to sub section 1 of section 92B, that clearly defines what an international transaction is. He thus submitted that, providing corporate guarantee is a financial obligation to the AE by the assessee. The Ld.DR placed reliance on the decision of Special 26 ITA 4840/Mum/2024

OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 for the proposition that there should be a consistency in the income tax proceedings unless mandated by change in law and the facts. 26. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the Transfer Pricing Officer. Justifying the change from TNMM to CUP method, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted the case

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Section 144C(13) and 144B of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Ground No. 1 to 1.4 raised by the Appellant are directed against 8. the transfer pricing addition of INR 16,59,51,699/-. During the relevant previous year, the Appellant had exported finished goods 3 ITA. No. 748/Mum/2022 Assessment Year

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

section 80 IB of the act. 019. Both the parties agreed that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for earlier assessment years wherein the coordinate bench has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the honourable High Court in earlier years where the appeals of the Department have

DCIT - 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for assessment year 2003 – 04 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Dcit-10(3)(2) Healthcare Co.Ltd. Room No. 509, 5 Th Floor, Aaykar P & G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400 Mumbai- 400 020 099 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp6332M Assessee By : Shri. Kanchan Koushal, Shri. Yogesh Thar, Shri. Jishan Jain, Shri. Pratik Shah, Shri. Yogesh Malpani Revenue By : Shri. Rajesh Damor (Cit Dr)

section 80 IB of the act. 019. Both the parties agreed that identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for earlier assessment years wherein the coordinate bench has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the honourable High Court in earlier years where the appeals of the Department have

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

Transfer Pricing\nadjustment. He also excludes payments made by AEs to assessee\nas pass-through cost.\ne. Ld. CIT(A) in AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13,\n2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 has been holding that the method\nadopted by AO is incorrect\nf. Appropriate Profit Level Indicator (PLI) decided