PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

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

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses of salary and related cost on deputation of personnel in India. (1) Ground No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D

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 which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

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

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 u/s 92CA(3) is barred by limitation and hence

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustments across\nmultiple operational segments, and corporate tax matters\nsuch as disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), mismatch\nbetween the tax audit report and the return of income, short\ngrant of advance tax credit, levy of interest under sections\n234B and 234D

TH BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – Circle - 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Pratik Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Udoal Raj Singh

Transfer Pricing 4(2) ('the learned TPO'), under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 2 ('the Hon'ble DRP'), erred in determining the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transaction of provision of management consultancy services at Rs. 30,91,74,079 instead of Rs. 23,79,44,777 as determined by the Appellant

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR\n93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses\nof salary and related cost on deputation of personnel\nin India.\n(1)\nGround No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR\n93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses\nof salary and related cost on deputation of personnel\nin India.\n(1)\nGround No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment-Reimbursement of advertisement & marketing\nspend\n10.1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP\nhas grossly erred in confirming the adjustments aggregating to Rs.\n2,84,68,27,994 made by the learned AO and the learned TPO under section 92CA\nof the Act pertaining to the alleged excessive

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment-Reimbursement of advertisement & marketing\nspend\n10. 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP\nhas grossly erred in confirming the adjustments aggregating to Rs.\n2,84,68,27,994 made by the learned AO and the learned TPO under section 92CA\n8\nITA No.1169/Mum/2014\nVodafone Digilink Limited

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made on adhoc basis. The TPO has to apply one of the prescribed method as is notified during the relevant point of time. We see no plausible reason to sustain the addition, hence, the adjustment on account of purchase of property from Hispano is liable to be deleted. We hold and direct accordingly

THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Transfer Pricing II(5) ('the learned TPO"), under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-II ('the Hon'ble DRP'), erred in holding the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transaction of payment of license fees for time and billing software at Nil instead of Rs. 2,64,23,881 as determined by the Appellant

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

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