ACCC 30, MUMBAI vs. UNITED SHIPPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C (2) of the act. With respect to the arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee, he following the decision of his predecessor in earlier assessment year held that corporate guarantee fees of 0.5% charged to its associated enterprise based on the past action of the learned transfer-pricing officer, it is at arm’s-length. Therefore

WARBURG PINCUS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6981/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008–09) Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Express Towers ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacw5205E V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–3(3), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020

234 and the resultant shortfall of ` 34,16,50,457 was considered as transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA. In accordance

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income

HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

section 40A(2)(b) was removed from the definition of specified domestic transaction, is retrospective in M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; AY: 13-14 nature and therefore, the entire transfer pricing adjustment made in case of the appellant is bad in law. No tax evasion 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Transfer Pricing Officer accepts that some services have been rendered, however, he has made a general observation that such services do not have any value and has proceeded to determine the arm's length price on a purely on ad–hoc basis. Whereas, the reading of the AAR ruling, referred to above, clearly demonstrate that highly specialized services, in fact

BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer himself admits that the assessee provides routine software development service to its AEs as a captive service provider. Whereas, Infosys Technologies Ltd. does not stand on the same footing. It provides end–to–end solution with regard to the development of the software. Further, the turnover of the assessee compared to the turnover of this comparable

STAR INTERNAITONAL MOVIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. I.T.A. No.1519 & 1637/Mum/2016 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete one or more of the ground at any time before, or at the time of, hearing.‖ 3. The brief facts

CHANNEL MUSIC NETWORKS LTD PARTNERSHIP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. I.T.A. No.1519 & 1637/Mum/2016 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete one or more of the ground at any time before, or at the time of, hearing.‖ 3. The brief facts

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

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-9(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodagility Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Circle 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Mumbai, Room No. 210/260A, Vs. Andheri (East), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaacl3717A (Appellant) (Respondent) Agility Logistics Private Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Range 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 067 Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed any particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the income. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing

NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/NFAC DELAHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

234 of the Act 10. erred in levying interest of Rs 4,87,188 under Section 234C of the Act, 11. without prejudice to the above, erred in erroneously computing interest under Section 2340 Rs 4,87,188 against Rs 3,14,145;. Penalty Proceedings 12. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with section 270A

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

234 (Gauhati); and iii) CIT v/s Maganlal Mohanlal Panchan (HUF), [1994] 210 ITR 580 (Guj.). 30. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, since all income of section 10A/10AA eligible units are exempt and not subjected to tax in India, the assessee would not get tax credit for taxes paid on such income

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

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

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