ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

section 194C of the act. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment, assessee furnished additional evidences before the DRP. The remand

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

section 194C are squarely applicable on the said transactions in which the assessee would like to camouflage the same with the purchases.” 9. After considering the submissions and the rejoinder put forth by the assessee in light of the AO’s order as well his remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) held that, the assessee had purchased

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 194C are squarely applicable on the said transactions in which the assessee would like to camouflage the same with the purchases.” ITA.NO. 1783/MUM/2021 AY. 2017-18 Shoppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai 9. After considering the submissions and the rejoinder put forth by the assessee in light of the AO’s order as well his remand report

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer. 59. We noted that the channel companies, i.e. STEL, SAML, SAR, which were owners of various channel at the time of merger, merged with SIPL who then carried on broadcasting business under its own umbrella. The STAR brand, however, continued with STAR Ltd. Thus, the STAR brand which was earlier utilized by the channel companies as part

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment and declined to grant any relief in relation to disallowances made in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of Global Overhead Charges of INR.1,31,15,947/- and payments of INR.10,27,625/- to Team Lease. Further, the CIT(A) also enhance the disallowance under Section

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Pricing Officer (TPO) and also various additions. The assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order before Ld DRP. After receipt of the order passed by Ld DRP, the assessing officer has passed this final assessment order, which the assessee is challenging in the present appeal filed before the Tribunal. The revenue is challenging the decision of Ld DRP with

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer Rewa executed in favor of the assessee a Power of Attorney dated 1.12.2003. The assessee exercised the power vested in him under the said Power of Attorney dated 1.12.2003 and executed on behalf of Rewa, on 1st June, 2005 Developers and Properties Private Limited (a company in which assessee along with his family members are shareholders / directors) for sale

ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AECO INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1(1)(1) 579, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant M.K.Road Mumbai- 400 020 V/S

transfer pricing officer to determine and confirm the arm’s-length price, he computed, the arm’s-length price as under:- It is felt that a markup of 20% on trading activity should be reasonable and should represent Arms Length price. Consequently, 20% mark up on the expenses, as detailed below, incurred by the assessee has been considered to arrive

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

Pricing adjustment. ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 035. Ground no. 1 relates to transfer priding adjustment with respect to brokerage income which is already covered in the appeal of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with this issue which is now covered by the appeal of the assessee. As we have

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS J M MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

Pricing adjustment. ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 035. Ground no. 1 relates to transfer priding adjustment with respect to brokerage income which is already covered in the appeal of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with this issue which is now covered by the appeal of the assessee. As we have

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,196,447,328/– made by the learned assessing officer is not sustainable. 018. However we are also conscious that the provisions of Section 40A (2) of the act still exists in the statute book. The decision of the Texport overseas Ltd of the coordinate bench, which was partly challenged by the revenue before the honourable

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

price and the book value of shares of the AES is nothing but loan in disguise." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A ignoring the fact that the monthly summary of the joint venture capital account submitted by the assessee shows that

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

price and the book value of shares of the AES is nothing but loan in disguise." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A ignoring the fact that the monthly summary of the joint venture capital account submitted by the assessee shows that

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

194C of the Act, nor there is any principal-agent relationship between the assessee and the dealers/distributors to treat the payment made as commission in terms of section 194H r/w its Explanation. Therefore, we are of the view that since the payment made by the assessee are not covered under section 194C/194H of the Act, no disallowance under section

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the overseas support service fee. As a result, ground No. 2 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. The issue arising in ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to disallowance of depreciation on BSE/NSE membership cards. 18. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue