ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian Company is a subsidiary of M/s. Beaumont Development Centre Holding Ltd. and part of the Accenture Group. The assessee is basically providing Software Development Services (SDS), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Consultancy Services (CS) to its group entities worldwide. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').\n1.2. The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts and in law in disregarding the various submissions made by the\nAppellant without providing any cogent reasons thereof and also\nerroneously rejected the benchmarking analysis and comparable\ncompanies selected by the Appellant without appreciating the fact

BHARATKUMAR HARIDAS MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

24-11-2025 by Appellant and 2025 by Appellant and without granting the Appellant an opportunity of perso without granting the Appellant an opportunity of perso without granting the Appellant an opportunity of personal hearing despite specific written request, thereby violating the principles of despite specific written request, thereby violating the principles of despite specific written request, thereby violating

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

2,01,19,124 as against the amount of ` 18,10,72,120 actually paid by the assessee. Thus, it is evident that the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of royalty payment by making an ad–hoc adjustment purely on estimate basis without following any approved method for determination of arm's length price

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

24. In the course of hearing, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee had submitted, with exclusion of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. and Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. and inclusion of R. Systems International Ltd. as comparables, the margin of the assessee would fall within ±5% change of arithmetic mean of the rest of the comparable. Therefore, issues relating to the other comparables

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

X in the special provisions relating to avoidance of tax. As such, it is not correct to interpret that the scheme of Tonnage Tax will override the provisions of section 92 to 90 2F The fact that they are special provisions (Transfer Pricing) puts them on an elevated position than other general provisions.” 8. The Assessing Officer, thus, proposed

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

24 J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. company before the Transfer Pricing Officer nor before the DRP. Thus, he submitted, at this stage the assessee cannot challenge the selection of this company through additional ground. In support of such contention he relied upon certain case laws as submitted in Legal Paper Book–II. 41. In rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative

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 mechanism and the arm's length price computed thereof is includible in the assessable income of the assessee. So however, where the character of payment is towards share application money, thereby reflecting a capital investment, and the same not having been disputed by the TPO, such a transaction cannot be subject to an arm's length price adjustment

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

24) of the Act. In view of the above, history, the intention of the legislature has been to cover a particular transaction in the tax net; the law has been suitably amended. The fact that the gift of shares of a company in which the public is substantially interested between two companies was not covered under the provisions of section

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

x) of the Act. 11 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 215. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration during the year is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant under the provisions of section 56(1) of the Act.” As regards

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

x) of the Act. 11 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 215. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration during the year is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant under the provisions of section 56(1) of the Act.” As regards

MR. BIPINCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (1) (6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price and Rs. 2,500 being legal expenses incurred in connection therewith from the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 and assessed the same as short-term capital gain from the sale of the flat because the flat had been sold within 4 to 5 months of the purchase. The assessee was aggrieved by the above order

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:

x Note: The Central Board of Direct Taxes empowers the Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation or the concerned Directors of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) to distribute the working amongst the Transfer Pricing Officers working under then while exercising their powers and performing theirs functions.” A perusal of the above notification would show that the Board in exercise

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

2. Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v/s ACIT 381 ITR 227 3. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, 49/473 (Trib.) 10. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, even if the transaction value is zero still arm's length price has to be computed since the assessee and the A.E. are related parties. He submitted, since

MSC CREWING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

Section 92 of the Act is separate charging provisions. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP erred in law and in facts in making/confirming/proposing secondary transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 12.95 crores [(Rs. 12.93 crores for the Financial Year ('FY') 2008-09 and Rs. 0.02 crores for the FY 2009-10)] by imputing interest on the alleged notional

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

X of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer is required to determine the arm's length price of a specific international transaction. Section 92C of the Act prescribes certain methods for determining the arm's length price. Whereas, rule 10B lays down the mode and manner of computation of arm's length price under different methods prescribed under section

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

2. 9.36% furnished during TP assessment using lexis database) Venevision International Corporation and Univision Communications Inc (from additional 3. 7.50% search furnished during TP assessment using lexis database) Average 6.45% 40 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 93. Considering average rate of royalty of 6.45% versus royalty paid by assessee @ 7%, the Transfer Pricing Officer made adjustment

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 provisions do not apply to issuance of equity shares. Consequently, the DRP ought to have held that reference of the transaction to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) is untenable and bad in law. 3.1.5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case