CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6) of the Act. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also examined the employees’ profile of the assessee company and noted that the average salary of 55 employees of the assessee is ₹8,97,237

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6) of the Act. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also examined the employees’ profile of the assessee company and noted that the average salary of 55 employees of the assessee is ₹8,97,237

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

237/-\n4\nUnder recovery of salary expenses from AE\n93,12,637/-\n5\nExcessive AMP expenditure\n22,01,14,350/-\nTotal\n36,38,25,151/-\n3.1. On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment\nOrder under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act\nincorporating the above transfer pricing

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

237/-\n4\nUnder recovery of salary expenses from AE\n93,12,637/-\n5\nExcessive AMP expenditure\n22,01,14,350/-\nTotal\n36,38,25,151/-\n3.1. On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment\nOrder under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act\nincorporating the above transfer pricing

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 ()

section 92B, then it is inevitable that transaction has to bench marked in as per transfer pricing rules. 12.2. We refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Ameriprise India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 237

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

237 of the legal\npaper book].\"\n48. Ld.AR of the assessee finally submitted that the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has not rejected the cost incurred by the assessee. However,\nTransfer Pricing Officer has partially accepted that the cost allocated to\nIndian Branch are within the Arm's Length Price and balance about 40%\nArm's Length Price as Nil with

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

237 of the legal\npaper book].\"\n48. Ld.AR of the assessee finally submitted that the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has not rejected the cost incurred by the assessee. However,\nTransfer Pricing Officer has partially accepted that the cost allocated to\nIndian Branch are within the Arm's Length Price and balance about 40%\nArm's Length Price as Nil with

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

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

237 of the legal\npaper book].\"\n48. Ld.AR of the assessee finally submitted that the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has not rejected the cost incurred by the assessee. However,\nTransfer Pricing Officer has partially accepted that the cost allocated to\nIndian Branch are within the Arm's Length Price and balance about 40%\nArm's Length Price as Nil with

ACIT (IT)-4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD., MUMBAI

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

237 of the legal\npaper book].\"\n48. Ld.AR of the assessee finally submitted that the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer has not rejected the cost incurred by the assessee. However,\nTransfer Pricing Officer has partially accepted that the cost allocated to\nIndian Branch are within the Arm's Length Price and balance about 40%\nArm's Length Price as Nil with

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Issues 1. The learned DRP ought in holding that the provisions of section 14 A of the act were applicable in case of the appellant, since the dividend from shares/units of mutual funds is subjected to tax in the hence of the payer under section 115 – O/115 – R of the act and as the appellant receives and amount

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Issues 1. The learned DRP ought in holding that the provisions of section 14 A of the act were applicable in case of the appellant, since the dividend from shares/units of mutual funds is subjected to tax in the hence of the payer under section 115 – O/115 – R of the act and as the appellant receives and amount

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Issues 1. The learned DRP ought in holding that the provisions of section 14 A of the act were applicable in case of the appellant, since the dividend from shares/units of mutual funds is subjected to tax in the hence of the payer under section 115 – O/115 – R of the act and as the appellant receives and amount

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Issues 1. The learned DRP ought in holding that the provisions of section 14 A of the act were applicable in case of the appellant, since the dividend from shares/units of mutual funds is subjected to tax in the hence of the payer under section 115 – O/115 – R of the act and as the appellant receives and amount

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

price based on data which was not available as on the specified date (as defined in Section 92F (IV) of the Act read with Rule 10B (4) of the Rules]. Moreover, TPO/AO erred in not allowing risk adjustments as warranted under Rule 10B (1) (xe) (ii) of the Rules. M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India

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

price based on data which was not available as on the specified date (as defined in Section 92F (IV) of the Act read with Rule 10B (4) of the Rules]. Moreover, TPO/AO erred in not allowing risk adjustments as warranted under Rule 10B (1) (xe) (ii) of the Rules. M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India

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

price based on data which was not available as on the specified date (as defined in Section 92F (IV) of the Act read with Rule 10B (4) of the Rules]. Moreover, TPO/AO erred in not allowing risk adjustments as warranted under Rule 10B (1) (xe) (ii) of the Rules. M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India

TORRECID INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground nos

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax- 11(3)(1) Flat No.29, 30,31, Gidc Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Alindra, Vadodra-Gujarat Vs. Gandhinagar, Gujarat-391775 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct4321M Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Anand Perampurana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

Section 92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 28th January, 2016. 07. Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 22nd February, 2016, determining the total income of the assessee at a loss of ₹1,16,90,237/-. Over and above, the transfer pricing

NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43(6)(c), it relates to acquisition of a subsidiary company by its holding company or vice versa and for the transaction of amalgamation. It does not deal with transaction of slump sale. Thus, the provisions referred by the authorities below are misplaced for the impugned transaction of slump sale undertaken by the assessee which gave rise