STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

section\n92CA(2) of the Act was issued vide letter dated 21.01.2004. In response,\nAuthorised Representative of the assessee filed the relevant information\nas called for.\n34. During Transfer Pricing proceedings the assessee was asked to\nexplain the benefits derived out of this cost allocation and show that the\nbenefits are commensurate to the costs allocated to it. In this

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

section\n92CA(2) of the Act was issued vide letter dated 21.01.2004. In response,\nAuthorised Representative of the assessee filed the relevant information\nas called for.\n34. During Transfer Pricing proceedings the assessee was asked to\nexplain the benefits derived out of this cost allocation and show that the\nbenefits are commensurate to the costs allocated to it. In this

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

transfer pricing officer and the learned dispute resolution panel has not followed the decision of the coordinate bench. He submitted that the assessee itself and submitted that coordination, licensing with the airlines is an activity incidental to the assessee is export pickup services for which it is already being compensated and incidental cost if any are considered under the transactional

NIPRO CORPORATION,JAPAN,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

Section 92CA (3) of the Act on 31st December, 2020, making a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹6,75,36,860/- on account of two international transaction. [1] Arm’s length price of Guarantee fee on corporate guarantee transaction of Rs 54,16,947/- was determined at ₹5,41,69,470/- by adopting CUP method as Most Appropriate method by taking

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Transfer Pricing Officer has applied the average interest rate of domestic credit facility availed by the assessee. However, it is seen from the material on IT A No. 8 6 14/Mu m/2 0 11 record, the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on behalf of the overseas subsidiary are on foreign currency (dollar), therefore, domestic PLR rate in terms

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(1)(OSD), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

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

transfer pricing study report, the Ld.TPO noted that, assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both segment as under: Particulars ITES Software Total Operating Income 443,412 392,282 834,694 Other Income 20,930 Total Income 443,412 392,282 856,624 Expenditure

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNAITOANL SERVICES (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

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

transfer pricing study report, the Ld.TPO noted that, assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both segment as under: Particulars ITES Software Total Operating Income 443,412 392,282 834,694 Other Income 20,930 Total Income 443,412 392,282 856,624 Expenditure

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

prices that are higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the receipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers the amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received. builder. Such a relationship does not spell out a debtor-creditor relationship nor is the payment made by the appellant

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

Transfer pricing addition of INR 4,11,67,000/- (viii) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to the extent of INR 1,82,45,413/- [INR 3,94,71,017/- Less INR 2,12,25,604/-] (ix) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act to the extent

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

price (ALP) of the international transaction. Insofar as, domestic transactions are concerned, A.O. called for and examined various details. Based on the order of the TPO and his own enquiry conducted in course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. framed a draft assessment order. 4. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 63,93,140, by re-computing the ALP of the international transaction undertaken by ANZ Mumbai relating to marketing support services provided by ANZ Mumbai to its AEs in respect of derivative products. Ground 4: Rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the Appellant and adopting revenue split under Profit Split Method

ISS FACILITY SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLER-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 92C(1) of the Act was followed by TPO/ DRP for upholding partial adjustment in respect of international transaction pertaining to Payment of Global Client Management Fee and same was done merely on ad-hoc basis, TPO is directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,66,71,462/- in respect of Payment of Global Client Management

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

234 without considering the fact that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to returned income. returned income. Ground No. 4: Erroneous computation of book profit/loss under Ground No. 4: Erroneous computation

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

234 without considering the fact that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to that interest under section 234C of the Act should be restricted to returned income. returned income. Ground No. 4: Erroneous computation of book profit/loss under Ground No. 4: Erroneous computation

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

transfer pricing officer to determine to arms length price of the international transaction. On receipt of the reference the Ld.TPO called for economic details of the transaction entered into between assessee and its AE that in form 3CEB. From the details A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13, Zensar Technologies Ltd filed by the assessee the Ld.TPO noted that following were

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 On the other hand, the Ld DR submitted that no third-party would provide guarantee without compensation and accordingly, an adjustment for the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee was warranted. 212 We have taken into consideration the contentions advanced

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 On the other hand, the Ld DR submitted that no third-party would provide guarantee without compensation and accordingly, an adjustment for the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee was warranted. 212 We have taken into consideration the contentions advanced

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG (1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the transactions the assessee had with its Associated Enterprise (AE). The TPO made an adjustment of Rs.1,06,30,175 towards ITES markup under charged and Rs.17,59,344 towards Business Support markup under charged. Besides the TP adjustments, the assessing officer made other additions