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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The co- ordinate Bench has decided the issue as under for A.Y. 2002- 03. For that assessment year the TPO granted an adjustment of marketing cost to the extent of 0.1076% and which is approximately 30% of the weighted average rate charged to 3rd party clients. The learned CIT (A) granted adjustment of 40% with respect

DCIT 3(4), MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Transfer Pricing Guidelines as well as UK and Australian\nRegulations. It is evident from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner\n(Appeals), though, he sketchily Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. referred to some of\nthe submissions made by the assessee, however, he has not at all dealt with them in\nan effective manner. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, has observed

CLSA INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

transfer pricing adjustment, has erred by comparing the internal CUP (as arrived at by the learned TPO), to the average brokerage rate charged by the Appellant to its AEs. 10. Without prejudice, the learned TPO/ learned AO / learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the evidence filed before the Appellant, which demonstrates the difference in the functions undertaken for serving