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

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

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

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

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

transfer pricing adjustment for non-binding investment advisory and support services lacked merit. For IT-enabled services, the issue of comparability of R Systems International Ltd. was remanded to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)", "144C(1)", "253(1)", "234A

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CAPITA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), MUMBAI

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "153", "92CA", "115P", "143(1)", "234A", "234B", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)" ], "issues": "The primary issues were the correctness of the transfer pricing

ASST CIT RG 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CRISIL LTD, MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing documentation\nand conducting his own comparability analysis (and in this regard,\nobtaining the financial data of certain potential comparables using\nhis powers under Section 133(6) of the Act) which is not in\naccordance with the contemporaneous documentation requirement\nof the Indian TP regulations;\nd. requiring financial data of only the current year

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT ,RANGE 5 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly\nallowed for statistical purposes, as per our aforesaid observations

Transfer pricing\n– Computationof arm's length price [Safe harbour rules] - Assessment\n\n29\nyear 2008-09 -Assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of\nits AE - As said expenseswere to be reimbursed to assesee receipts\non account of reimbursement wasrecovered on cost plus 10 per cent\nmark up TPO proposed mark up at the rate.\n12.5 per cent

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

transfer pricing adjustment Payment made for availing consultancy services 11. erred in upholding the learned TPO's action of determining the arm's length price of the international transaction of availing consulting services from its AE amounting to Rs.99,27,601 to be Nil by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using the CUP method; Payment made towards

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

234A of the Act although the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. Ground No. 4: Levying consequential interest under section 234B Ground No. 4: Levying consequential interest under section 234B Ground

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

234A of the Act although the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. the Appellant had filed its return of income within the due date. Ground No. 4: Levying consequential interest under section 234B Ground No. 4: Levying consequential interest under section 234B Ground

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10A of IT Act / Export turnover as defined in Explanation 2(IV) of Section 10A of the IT Act + domestic sale proceeds 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10A of IT Act / Export turnover as defined in Explanation 2(IV) of Section 10A of the IT Act + domestic sale proceeds 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 10A of IT Act / Export turnover as defined in Explanation 2(IV) of Section 10A of the IT Act + domestic sale proceeds 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third