UCB INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 234A of the Act.” 3. Ground no.1 being general in nature, no specific adjudication is required. 4. At the instructions of the assessee, learned Authorised Representative did not press grounds no.14 and 15. Hence, these grounds are dismissed as “not pressed”. 5. Out of rest of the grounds, grounds no.2 to 12 are arising out of transfer pricing

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing adjustment by the learned AO 18. erred by not appreciating that the arm' s length interest rate in the present facts of the case should be Nil. 19. erred in not appreciating that in the event the Appellant had appointed a third party to undertake the said acquisition, such third party would not have paid interest for facilitating

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer pricing - Computation of arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE - As said expenses were to be reimbursed to assesee receipts on account of reimbursement was recovered on cost plus 10 per cent mark up TPO proposed mark up at the rate 12.5 per cent

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

234A of the Ground No.39 Ground No.39 Act Levy of interest under section 234C of the Ground No.40 Ground No.40 Act 2. The assessee also raised an additional ground in both AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 contending the validity of final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

234A of the Ground No.39 Ground No.39 Act Levy of interest under section 234C of the Ground No.40 Ground No.40 Act 2. The assessee also raised an additional ground in both AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 contending the validity of final assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras

DIAGEO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A cannot be levied. Therefore, the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the interest charged under that Section. Ground number 27 of the appeal is allowed. 038. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 039. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer, which is on the issue of transfer pricing

DCIT,CIR-6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIAGEO INDIA PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A cannot be levied. Therefore, the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the interest charged under that Section. Ground number 27 of the appeal is allowed. 038. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 039. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer, which is on the issue of transfer pricing

DHL LOGISTICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

price of the said transactions as per the Appellant's TP documentation, and the addition made on account of the above grounds should be deleted. 5. Charge of interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act. 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in charging interest under section 234A

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

234A of the Act even though the return of income was filed by the Appellate within the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. IV. Lew of interest under section 234B of the Act 32. Erred in levying interest of Rs.7,74,50,634 under section 234B of the Act. V. Initiation

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

234A and 234B of the Act. 8. That the AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act for the alleged under-reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO erred in making an adjustment of INR 13,96,21,226 in respect of international transactions undertaken during year, alleging that the same were not at arm’s length in terms of the provisions of Sections

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Study Report). Hence, GIA India Lab is not acting in India on behalf of the assessee company. Further, GIA India Lab is not having any authority to conclude contracts and has neither concluded any contracts on behalf of the assessee company nor has it secured any orders for the assessee company in India. Thus, GIA India Lab cannot

ESSAR PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal: “1. The Assessing Officer, under directions of DRP, has erred in law and on facts in making disallowance

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 adjustment in respect of technical know-how fees of INR 190,330,332 paid by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed TPO/AU erred in holding, and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in directing, that the arm's length price in respect of technical