PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(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

section 92CA (3) of the act wherein the learned transfer pricing officer has proposed the adjustment of ₹ 9,481,275/– with respect to the availing of services from its associated enterprises which was scaled down to ₹ 6,278,920/– as per the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel recomputed by the learned transfer pricing officer. The learned AO further

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

section 92CA (3) of the act wherein the learned transfer pricing officer has proposed the adjustment of ₹ 9,481,275/– with respect to the availing of services from its associated enterprises which was scaled down to ₹ 6,278,920/– as per the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel recomputed by the learned transfer pricing officer. The learned AO further

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

Section 153 of the Act would also be barred by limitation. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 was electronically filed on 29/11/2016. The assessee , a Joint Venture of Tubacex SA and Prakash Steelage Limited, was incorporated as a private limited company on 22/04/2015. The assessee

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

239,13,35,680/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. 06. As assessee has entered into several international transactions with its Associated Enterprises, ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 reference was made to the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) on 28th July, 2016. After

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

239,13,35,680/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. 06. As assessee has entered into several international transactions with its Associated Enterprises, ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 reference was made to the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3), Mumbai (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) on 28th July, 2016. After

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing\nStudy Report (TPSR) the Assessee had itself adopted CUP Method\nas the Most Appropriate Method. Further, the facts relevant for\nadjudication of this ground are also not on record. However, since\nwe have concluded that marketing and volume adjustment should\nbe granted to the Assessee, Ground No. 12 raised by the Assessee\nhas been rendered infructuous and therefore

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,678,899/– on account of arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee fee, the learned AO further made the following adjustment /additions / disallowance:- i During the year assessee has declared capital gain of ₹ 35,472,992/– which included short- term capital gain of ₹ 23,870,858 on purchase and sale of units of mutual

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,678,899/– on account of arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee fee, the learned AO further made the following adjustment /additions / disallowance:- i During the year assessee has declared capital gain of ₹ 35,472,992/– which included short- term capital gain of ₹ 23,870,858 on purchase and sale of units of mutual

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,678,899/– on account of arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee fee, the learned AO further made the following adjustment /additions / disallowance:- i During the year assessee has declared capital gain of ₹ 35,472,992/– which included short- term capital gain of ₹ 23,870,858 on purchase and sale of units of mutual

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 2,678,899/– on account of arm’s-length price of the corporate guarantee fee, the learned AO further made the following adjustment /additions / disallowance:- i During the year assessee has declared capital gain of ₹ 35,472,992/– which included short- term capital gain of ₹ 23,870,858 on purchase and sale of units of mutual

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) the Assessee had itself adopted CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method. Further, the facts relevant for adjudication of this ground are also not on record. However, since we have concluded that marketing and volume adjustment should be granted to the Assessee, Ground No. 12 raised by the Assessee has been rendered infructuous and therefore

NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT LTD) ,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/ASST.COMM. OF INCOME TAX/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

239,43,24,903 TNMM Services 2. Availing of IT Support Services 4,61,54,986 TNMM 3. Recovery of expenses 6,62,68,936 CUP 4. Reimbursement of Expenses 19,26,985 CUP 4. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) after examining TP study submitted by the assessee qua provision of software development services carried out his own search

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Price.\n6.3.7 With reference to above, judicial precedents rendered by various\nTribunals while examining 'market price' in the context of power supplied\nby power plants to manufacturing units has held that the rate at which\nthe State Electricity Board supplies power to its consumers is to be\nconsidered to be the market value:\n• M/s Hero Motocorp Limited

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

section 144C of the Act and hence it is prayed that the order passed by the AO is bad in law and merits to be quashed; Transfer Pricing Grounds: Adjustment on account of payment of royalty for use of trademarks (Disallowance INR 11.00,72,725-Tax effect INR 3,66,87,239

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing. The Ld. TPO has not followed any method and disregarded his own show cause notice and relied upon undisclosed secret comparables in respect of controlled transactions. Thus he submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) findings ought to be upheld, especially since the pricing policy of the Assessee of 30% of the NNBV is a globally accepted practice, followed

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

transfer pricing. The Ld. TPO has not followed any method and disregarded his own show cause notice and relied upon undisclosed secret comparables in respect of controlled transactions. Thus he submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) findings ought to be upheld, especially since the pricing policy of the Assessee of 30% of the NNBV is a globally accepted practice, followed

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. HONGKONG & SANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

transfer pricing. The Ld. TPO has not followed any method and disregarded his own show cause notice and relied upon undisclosed secret comparables in respect of controlled transactions. Thus he submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) findings ought to be upheld, especially since the pricing policy of the Assessee of 30% of the NNBV is a globally accepted practice, followed