CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of account of interest on loan to Associated Enterprises to the extent sustained by the CIT(A). 16.1. Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Assessee is identical to Ground No. III raised in appeal by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove. Both

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

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

section 270A of the Act be quashed.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is private limited company and is engaged in the business of warehousing, transportation service, express delivery and other related business. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 12/02/2021, declaring loss of Rs.90,99,92,346/-. The case

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

211, 215, 231 and 238 of the paper book. With respect to the segmental analysis not available in case of this comparable, reference was made to paper book page number 243. The assessee also referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009 – 10 and 2010 – 11 in 64 taxmann.com

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

211, 215, 231 and 238 of the paper book. With respect to the segmental analysis not available in case of this comparable, reference was made to paper book page number 243. The assessee also referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009 – 10 and 2010 – 11 in 64 taxmann.com

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment on account of the aforesaid international transaction.\nHowever, the AO, by placing reliance upon the findings of its predecessor in\nassessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, held that the legitimate\nright to receive corresponding income (Royalty) cannot be waived off through\nan arbitrary decision, particularly till such time as the original written

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shir M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethyssenkrupp Industries Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(2) India Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 154-C, Mittal Towers, Room No. 609, 15Th Floor, 210, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1947K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Pratik Podar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Samuel Pitta.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 27th November, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Thyssenkrupp Industries Ind Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following re-framed questions of law for our consideration

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the Act on 16.07.202, who passed an order dated 27.01.2022 without proposing any adjustment to the arm’s length price. 3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During following additions and disallowances: i. Disallowance of deduction under section

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as TPO) in adding an amount of Rs.2,44,893/- to the total income through an adjustment made to the Arm's Length Price with regards to international transactions entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises, without considering the facts of the case and the submission of Appellant in this respect

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as TPO) in adding an amount of Rs.2,44,893/- to the total income through an adjustment made to the Arm's Length Price with regards to international transactions entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises, without considering the facts of the case and the submission of Appellant in this respect

LANXESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

transfer pricing assessment observed that following were the international transaction entered into by the assessee with its AE’s during the year under consideration : Sr. Nature of Transaction Amount (in Rs.) Method used No. 1. Import of raw materials for 200,30,78,091 CPM manufacturing A.Y.2020-21 5 2. Export of manufactured finished 3,247,492,804 RPM goods

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

price.\n3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read\nwith section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nexamined various claims made by the assessee and made the\nfollowing additions and disallowances:\ni. Disallowance of deduction under section 80G\nThe Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

transfer\npricing adjustment on account of the aforesaid international transaction.\nHowever, the AO, by placing reliance upon the findings of its predecessor in\nassessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, held that the legitimate\nright to receive corresponding income (Royalty) cannot be waived off through\nan arbitrary decision, particularly till such time as the original written

TRANSPORTER INDUSTRY INTERNATINAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

section 92C of the Act. And further for any comparability analysis, the Ld. DRP ought to have followed the mandate under Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Rules, i.e. one of the method prescribed u/s 92C of the Act needs to be used while determining the ALP as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provisions as it is not an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. 211

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provisions as it is not an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. 211

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 494/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited. [Successor To Firmenich Aromatics (India) Private Limited] Abr Sapphire, Plot No.79, Street-13, Midc, Andheri East, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai – 400 093. Pan; Aabcf-1120-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additiona/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Pratik Shah & Amol Mahajan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2023

211, benchmarked by the assessee applying TNMM, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted a major part of the sales of finished products to the AEs to be at arm's length. He has only raised objections in respect of the turnover relating to specific finished products sold both to AEs and non–AEs. Upon verifying the price charged for such

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND CO. LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

211,042 Tax Effect 2,846,212 ITA.No. 362/Mum/2022 BSR and Co AY 2012-13 Computation of Tax effect Total Tax on Tax on Total Education Total Income assessed Particulars Income @ cess @3% (INR) Income INR 30% INR (A) INR(B) (A+B) Assessed Income as per Asst 80,579,979 24,173,994 725,220 24,899,214 Order

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BSR AND COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

211,042 Tax Effect 2,846,212 ITA.No. 362/Mum/2022 BSR and Co AY 2012-13 Computation of Tax effect Total Tax on Tax on Total Education Total Income assessed Particulars Income @ cess @3% (INR) Income INR 30% INR (A) INR(B) (A+B) Assessed Income as per Asst 80,579,979 24,173,994 725,220 24,899,214 Order