RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

price on a recognized stock exchange either as on 31 January 2018 or on the date of transfer. It made no provision for shares which were unlisted on both those dates, as was the case with the assessee‟s OFS shares. To reiterate here in this case assessee transferred 20,71,963 shares into an escrow account

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:

transfer/ posting orders assign a particular officer to that vacancy. To put it in simple words, the Board authorization creates a vacancy and by virtue of transfer/posting orders the Department fills the said vacancy with the designated incumbent. As pointed earlier, the definition of Joint Commissioner in Section 2(28C) includes Additional Commissioner, therefore, in our considered view there

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

71,00,000/- (c) Cellsite sharing revenue amounting to INR 59,00,000/- (d) Export incentives amounting to INR 3,08,400,000/- (e) Miscellaneous income amounting to INR 19,42,90,000/- (f) Liabilities/provisions written back of INR 53,00,000/- 9.2. The Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA(1) read with Section 80IA

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

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

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

2)(viia) of the Act. 5 3 On the issue of sale of Shares of 110,95,81,200 71,64,92,560 QNPL to SIPL: TPO concluded that the sale consideration charged from the AE was less than the arm’s length price of shares sold. TPO recomputed capital gains after taking into account the arm’s length price

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55,935/- to the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction. iv. This adjustment was challenged by filing an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP), wherein

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55,935/- to the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction. iv. This adjustment was challenged by filing an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP), wherein

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55,935/- to the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction. iv. This adjustment was challenged by filing an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP), wherein

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77,55,935/- to the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction. iv. This adjustment was challenged by filing an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP), wherein

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

2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Pursuant to the reference made by the AO, the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‟) vide order dated 28/10/2011 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,18,93,593, to the international transactions undertaken by the assessee

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

2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Pursuant to the reference made by the AO, the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO‟) vide order dated 28/10/2011 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,18,93,593, to the international transactions undertaken by the assessee

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing matters made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP in respect of data processing and software services be deleted. Ground 2 - Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses amounting to Rs. 29,47,184 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO while giving effect to the directions

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

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

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

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

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹320,13,82,586/-. The learned Assessing Officer incorporating the above adjustment of transfer pricing and also making several other additions, passed the draft assessment order

ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

71,882/-. The revised return of income was filed on 27/03/2008 declaring total income of Rs 17,62,36,809/- . The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 05/09/2007 by DCIT, Circle 7(3), Mumbai . The assessee had certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and had filed audit report in Form 3CEB along with