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

Bench: 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. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: 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

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145,67,53,980/- and book profit

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as per normal computation of income at ₹145,67,53,980/- and book profit

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

234C of the Act (a) The learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 12,25,65,078 under sections 234B of the Act. The appellant denies liability to interest under section 234B of the Act. (b) The learned AO erred in levying interest at an erroneous amount of Rs 7,19,241 under sections 254C

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing study: •Ask Me Info Ltd. •MCS Ltd. •CMC Ltd. •C.S. Software Enterprise Ltd •Mphasis BFL, Ltd. •Tata Share Registry Ltd. •HCL Technologies Ltd. •Datamatics Technologies Ltd. 2.10 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in wrongfully including the following comparable companies in the final set of comparables: •Apes

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. TPO. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute the total taxable income as Rs. 2.18,46,93.421/-instead of Rs. 2,18,87.79,755. 3. Ground no. 3 TP adjustment on account of provision of IT Support and related services (ITeS) segment - INR 4,56,43,738 On the facts

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing\nassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the\narm's length price of the international transaction of reimbursement of\nexpenditure should not be considered as Rs.Nil. The TPO, vide order passed\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, held that the assessee had failed to establish\nthat it was a requirement of the assessee

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing\nassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the\narm's length price of the international transaction of reimbursement of\nexpenditure should not be considered as Rs.Nil. The TPO, vide order passed\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, held that the assessee had failed to establish\nthat it was a requirement of the assessee

THERMO FISHER SCIENFTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing\nassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the\narm's length price of the international transaction of reimbursement of\nexpenditure should not be considered as Rs.Nil. The TPO, vide order passed\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, held that the assessee had failed to establish\nthat it was a requirement of the assessee

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing\nassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the\narm's length price of the international transaction of reimbursement of\nexpenditure should not be considered as Rs.Nil. The TPO, vide order passed\nunder section 92CA(3) of the Act, held that the assessee had failed to establish\nthat it was a requirement of the assessee

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 3(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

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

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92CA(1)", "92C(3)", "92C(1)", "234C", "270A", "92B", "92A", "92F(ii)", "10AB", "92", "230", "232", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether 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,\nb requiring financial data of only the current year (FY 2008-09) of\nthe

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

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

Transfer Pricing documentation and conducting his own comparability analysis (and in this regard, obtaining the financial data of certain potential comparables using his powers under Section 133(6) of the Act) which is not in accordance with the contemporaneous documentation requirement of the Indian TP regulations; 3. requiring financial data of only the current year