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 adjustment. In addition\nthe\nAssessing\nOfficer\nalso\nproposed\nother\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

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

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition\nthe Assessing Officer also proposed other\nadditions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act.\n3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft\nAssessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP\ndisposed off the objections granting partial relief to the\nAssessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer\npassed

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

194J", "40(a)(ii)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia), and transfer pricing adjustments

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 Study Report (TPSR) the Assessee had itself adopted CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method. Further, the facts relevant for adjudication of this ground are also not on record. However, since we have concluded that marketing and volume adjustment should be granted to the Assessee, Ground No. 12 raised by the Assessee has been rendered infructuous and therefore

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

ITO (TDS) 3(4), MUMBAI vs. UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4592/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4593/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito (Tds) 3(4),10Th Floor, Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Room No. 1011, Unichem Bhawan, S.V.Road, बनाम/ Smt. K.G.M. Ayurvedic Hospital 8, Prabhat Estate, Bulidng, Charni Road, Jogeshwari (West), V. Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai – 400 102. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu0551B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

194J(ba) were made w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and it is not applicable to the relevant A.Y. without appreciating that any amendment made to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, should be taken as curative in nature and should be given retrospective effect. 2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which

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

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

CLSA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing–I(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Porus Kaka a/w Shri Divesh Chawla Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing – 03.12.2020 Date of Order – 14.12.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the assessment order dated 1st October 2010, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C

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

transfer pricing issue was rejected. The directions were issued on 15/6/2022 which culminated into the final assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer on 26/7/2022 which is appeal against. 010. The learned authorized representative submitted that the ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature and therefore same is not pressed as the arguments are covered

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

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

DCIT 8 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH.) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2012-2013

pricing formula fin ally adopted. There is nothing on record to support the Revenue's contention that the wheeling and transmission charges assumes the character of rent. We are in agreement with Mr. Mistri that the expression "rent" must be conceptually understood. The concept of rent under the Income-tax Act does not encompass, in our view, the wheeling

TATA TELESERVICES(MAHARASHTRA) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

194J of the Act, in respect of payments made towards roaming service provided by other telecom service providers. Facts being common in all the assessment years, therefore, as a matter of convenience, we refer to the facts as involved in assessment year 2009–10. 3. Brief facts are, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in assessee

DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA TELESERVICES (MAH) LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-8(3)(1) M/S Tata Teleservices (Mah) Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Ltd., D-26, Ttc Indl Area Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Mumbai-20. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs. Pan: Aaach1458C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hiten Chande (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

price of the starter kit / sim card is ` 80. Furthermore, as per the terms and conditions, once the sim card / starter kits are sold to the distributor, the sale is complete and under no circumstances, they can be returned back to the assessee. From the aforesaid facts, it is clearly evident that as far as sale of starter