ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

prices or value generated is also on higher side in the first year in order to cover up the expenses mentioned above. The assessee submitted that these commission or agency charges also included out of pocket expenses which is the responsibility of the overseas agents to be incurred by them. It was also submitted that these overseas commission were paid

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

sections": [ "90", "92C(3)", "92CA(1)", "37(1)", "80G", "14A", "135", "40(a)(i)", "40(a)(ia)", "115JB", "10AA", "195", "10A", "9(1)(vi)", "13(2)", "13(3)", "9(1)(iv)", "Article 25", "Article 7", "Article 12" ], "issues": "The appeals raised multiple issues including transfer pricing

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

price cannot be considered as “Royalty” under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Once that is so, then it is very difficult to hold that the assessee should have deducted TDS on such payment when there was no clear cut law that such a payment would be taxable in India. Here, the maxim

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

price cannot be considered as “Royalty” under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Once that is so, then it is very difficult to hold that the assessee should have deducted TDS on such payment when there was no clear cut law that such a payment would be taxable in India. Here, the maxim

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

195 arase which the assessee failed to discharge?" 13. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest income which was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, without filing revived return of income?" 14. "Whether on facts

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer should be restored. 43. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Insofar as the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act, we are unable

EXXON MOBIL COMPANY INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Pricing Officer or by the DRP. After considering the submissions of the parties, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim with regard to working capital adjustment & risk adjustment and decide the same after providing due opportunity of being heard. These grounds are partly allowed. 37. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of entertainment expenditure

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing provisions of section 92-B(i) of the IT Act would not apply. 9.1 The learned DR, on the other hand relied upon the decision ITAT Mumbai Bench “B” in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. DIT (Exemption), [2005] 96 ITD 263 (Mum) wherein it was held that 11 M/s. Topsgrup Electronic Systems

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

transfer-pricing officer has noted that assessee has submitted the agreement dated 2/1/2008 wherein the royalty rates were 1% from 1/1/2008 and the second agreement dated 9/2/2012 where the rate of royalty is 1.5% from 1/1/2012. As per these agreements the royalty was payable on monthly basis. He found that in the earlier years the arm’s-length price

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

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

KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. 16 Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the unutilized MODVAT credit has been added only to the closing stock by the Departmental Authorities by invoking the provision of section 145A of the Act. However, now it is fairly well settled that adjustment

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

prices or value generated is also on higher side in the first year in order to cover up the expenses mentioned above. The assessee submitted that these commission or agency charges also included out of pocket expenses which is the responsibility of the overseas agents to be incurred by them. It was also submitted that these M/s. Shamrock Pharmachemi Pvt.Ltd

DDIT (IT) 4(2),MUMBAI vs. ABU DHABI SHIP BLDG PJSC, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

195(2) of the Act, requesting for approval for non–deduction of tax at source on payment to be made to Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC for the construction of the ISVs. In the said application, it was stated by 3 M/s. Abu Dhabi Ship Building PJSC the payer ONGC that no tax is required to be deducted

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Transfer Pricing Officer by determining the arm's length price of Intra Group Services at nil is contrary to the statutory provisions, hence, cannot be sustained. 15. It is worth mentioning, assessee‟s AE, SABMiller Management (IN) B.V. had approached the AAR seeking ruling on various issues relating to the nature and character of services rendered under the GSA. After

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer further held that total assets of the assessee shows that the creditworthiness of the assessee is much higher than that of the Associated Enterprises and therefore, interest savings of 1.27% should be shared between parties in the ratio of 80:20 and accordingly, he proposed guarantee commission at the rate of 1%. xi. Ld AO computed amount