FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

transfer pricing study report, it should not be excluded. 65. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a perusal of the annual report of the company, we have noted that a major portion of the cost comprises of payment made to third party vendors

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing provisions and the same therefore ought to be deleted. Interest under section 234B 19. On the facts and in the circumstances

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

Transfer Pricing Officer erred in not sharing complete details/ information collated under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of contracts between associated enterprise and third parties and on the basis this information obtained under section 133(6) erred in concluding that the Assessee is acting as an agent on behalf of its associated

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing 4. documentation maintained by the Appellant as per rule 10D (1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962”. 5. “the learned AO/ TPO erred in selecting Resale Price Method (‘RPM’) as the most appropriate method and in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) selected by the appellant”. 6. “the learned AO/ TPO erred in rejecting the certain comparables

HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. Levy of Interest under Section 234B

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. the AO/ TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble CIT(A) be deleted. Levy of Interest under Section 234B

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

section 92B of the Act, no transfer pricing 28 Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. adjustment could have been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. More so, when the method adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer for making such adjustment is not provided under the statute. Before parting, we must observe that all other international transactions entered into between the assessee

NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Unit 501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. Pan:Aaaca 9649L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent It(Tp)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By : Shri Debashish Chand Date Of Hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2016

234B at Rs 6,05,83,706 instead of Rs 5,14,69,706; Interest under Section 234C of the Act of Rs 53,67,503 26. erred in levying interest under Section 234C of the Act on assessed income without appreciating that the interest under section 234C is applicable on returned income; Penalty Proceedings 27. erred in initiating penalty

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

234B of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 21. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. 3. While ground nos 1, 20 and 21 are general in nature and, as fairly accepted by the learned counsel, do not require any specific adjudication

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at the time of grant of options) of Rs. 2.48.85,009 under section 37(1) of the Act 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld AO and Hon'ble DRP erred

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

234B of the Act. 14. Levy of the interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 15. Credit for TDS considered short by Rs. 45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 9th June 2022 has raised additional grounds that the impugned transfer pricing order dated 30th January 2013 passed

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

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

transfer pricing matters made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP in respect of data processing and software services be deleted. ITA No.2047/Mum/2014 & ITA No.1495/Mum/2015 Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P. Ltd. Ground 2 - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act The said ground is premature at this stage. 2.1. On the facts

ROLLS ROYCE MARINE INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer by merely observing that the benefits received by the assessee is not proved and further the assessee has not proved that such services were really required by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Revenue authorities cannot be upheld in view of the ratio laid in the judicial precedents cited before us. Accordingly

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. The ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly for statistical purposes. 11.0 The ground No. 7(seven) of the appeal relates to charging of interest under section 234B