M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

transfer price of the Appellant in respect of the payment of management service fee of INR 3, 01, 42,197/- to Associated Enterprises ('AEs'), holding that this international transaction does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in specific in doing so grossly erred in: 2.1 Disregarding the evidence placed on record by labelling them

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

197", "12(4)(b) of DTAA", "Article 7 of DTAA", "Article 5 of DTAA", "Article 12 of DTAA", "92C(2)", "9(1)(vii)", "194J", "40(a)(ii)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia), and transfer pricing

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

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of. 018. Based

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred in ignoring the provisions of section 92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred in ignoring the provisions of section 92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred in ignoring the provisions of section 92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟) and the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making the adjustment for arm‟s length price of corporate guarantee. The adjustment is worked out by TPO on assumptions and treating the Appellant at par with Banks. The TPO erred in ignoring the provisions of section 92C(3) and Section 92F(ii) of the Income

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

197,97,14,000). During the year under consideration, the Assessee has merely made the investment of Rs 25,00,00,000 in tax free bonds. Hence, the Assessee had sufficient own funds, and no disallowance can be made under section 14A. 4. The Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

197,97,14,000). During the year under consideration, the Assessee has merely made the investment of Rs 25,00,00,000 in tax free bonds. Hence, the Assessee had sufficient own funds, and no disallowance can be made under section 14A. 4. The Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

197,97,14,000). During the year under consideration, the Assessee has merely made the investment of Rs 25,00,00,000 in tax free bonds. Hence, the Assessee had sufficient own funds, and no disallowance can be made under section 14A. 4. The Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

197,97,14,000). During the year under consideration, the Assessee has merely made the investment of Rs 25,00,00,000 in tax free bonds. Hence, the Assessee had sufficient own funds, and no disallowance can be made under section 14A. 4. The Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income

TAJ TV LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

transfer without the prior written permission of Taj India, the whole or any part of its rights to any party in its absolute discretion. g. It can be seen that a major part of the risk in terms of market risk and technology risk are borne by the Taj India. Further measure of the revenue is from advertisement and subscription

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIAL LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU CIRCLE , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

transfer pricing adjustment by applying TNMM Method. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the Nomination & Remuneration Committee comprising of independent directors had approved the terms of remuneration including commission payable to the Directors. He further explained that the shareholders at the annual general meeting had also approved the same and therefore according to him, the TPO had erred

RED HAT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 15 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of payment of service fee and direct the same to be deleted. Ground 1.4 - 1.5: Adjustment on account of provision of software support services 10. During A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee was engaged in providing software support services, for which it was remunerated at a cost-plus mark

DY.CIT C C 5(2) CENTRAL RG-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

transfer pricing adjustment. It is noted that since the TPO had initially rejected TNMM as the MAM and applied CUP, he had no occasion to examine the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. Following the above order of this Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, we accordingly set aside the impugned order

DY.CIT. CC.5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

transfer pricing adjustment. It is noted that since the TPO had initially rejected TNMM as the MAM and applied CUP, he had no occasion to examine the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. Following the above order of this Tribunal in AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, we accordingly set aside the impugned order