ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

22, Vs. Chandivali, Andheri (E) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAFCA6695R Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perumpura, Date of hearing: 06.11.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. These are four appeals filed by the assessee

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

22,01,14,350/- pertaining to Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion expenditure (i) Ground No. 7.9 to 7.10: Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 7,97,68,155/- pertaining to Brand Royalty payment made to Vodafone Ireland Marketing Limited for obtaining the right to use of Vodafone trademark and trade name (j) Ground No. 7.11 to 7.13: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

price was determined as outstanding management fees along with a mark-up of 10% of the cost towards the recovery efforts. The payment of outstanding Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) charge was necessary to remove the encumbrance and to clear the title. The assessee also provided details

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

price was determined as outstanding management fees along with a mark-up of 10% of the cost towards the recovery efforts. The payment of outstanding Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited ITA No. 4161 & 4162 & CO No 204 & 205 (AY 2015-16 & 2016- 17) charge was necessary to remove the encumbrance and to clear the title. The assessee also provided details

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

22-08-2007 17 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following further amendment to the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),(Central Board of Direct Taxes), number

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

2), nor a specified\ndomestic transaction under section 92BA. The assessee also\nchallenged the validity of the reference to the TPO, the rejection of\nthe independent valuation report, and the reworking of valuation\nassumptions by the TPO, and objected to the proposed penalty\nproceedings.\n2.5 The DRP, after considering the draft assessment order, the\nobjections, submissions, and material on record

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer pricing adjustments 1. Rendering of software development 68,37,05,578 services 2. Intra-group services 10,51,45,309 Sub- total (A) 78,88,50,887 Corporate tax additions 3. Grant of lesser deduction under section 48,53,467 10AA of the Act in respect of remaining units 4. Denial of claim of depreciation on 2

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

22 ITA NO. 752 & 2541/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Thomas Cook (India) Limited “2) Whether the re-characterization of transaction and adjustment of interest is permissible for the year under consideration: a) The assessee totally ignored the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in section

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

section 14 -- -- -- -- -- 194C(2) 14. Deduction u/s.10AA on 15 13 14 -- -- -- interest income during assessment 15. Subscription fees u/s. 16 16 13 -- -- -- 40(a)(ia) 16. Warranty income of 18 -- -- -- -- -- CMC already offered 17. Year end provisions u/s. -- 14 11 -- -- -- 37(1) 18. 80G vis-a-vis CSR -- 18 15 -- -- -- expenses 19. Gratuity expenses -- 19 16 -- -- -- debited

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as 18 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited understood by Sec. 2

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

2), Rule 10C and Rule 10C and 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the 10B(1)(e), it is clear that the law mandates the assessee to choose any of the method see to choose any of the method described in section 92C(1) as described in section 92C(1) as the most appropriate meth

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

pricing study reported two international transactions international transactions of guarantee commission as under: of guarantee commission as under: Name of the Amount Guarantee Amount Guarantee Rate Charged Guarantee Guarantee AE Commission Commission received (in Rs.) received (in Rs.) OGDShIL 29,22,00,000 29,22,00,000 0.5% 14,70,094 14,70,094 Varada