ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

24. In the transfer pricing study report submitted by the assessee vide letter dated vide letter dated 21.12.2015 also the assessec stated that CUP 21.12.2015 also the assessec stated that CUP is the most appropriate method most appropriate method in this regard, the following was stated in regard, the following was stated in the TPSR COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE. COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

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

Transfer Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (l) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

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

price at which these are transferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit was made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it was the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the Assessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing addition in relation to performance guarantee given by the Assessee to Qatar Perolem on behalf of is AE (i.e. SP Qatar) the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had held as under: “25. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the fact that in case an associate enterprise failed to execute a contract then

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing addition in relation to performance guarantee given by the Assessee to Qatar Perolem on behalf of is AE (i.e. SP Qatar) the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had held as under: “25. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the fact that in case an associate enterprise failed to execute a contract then

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under section 92CA(3); or ii) any non-resident not being a company or any foreign company. Thus here in this case, it is neither a foreign company or a person in whose case variation is proposed as per TP order as the order passed by learned TPO in case of the assessee is time barred

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, 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.2 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.

transfer pricing adjustment by way of determining the ALP transaction by the TPO are also not sustainable in the eyes of law, the order of the TPO (supra) being barred by limitation. Since vide assessment order dated 24-2-2014 AO has made addition on account of determination of ALP of international transaction, such addition stands deleted being order

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

24- 25 CIRCLE 1, s144C 25/1071981574(1) Mumbai 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. Tax Credit u/s, 90 in respect of Dividend received from subsidiary in Singapore On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the Appellant's claim for tax credit

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.

transfer pricing adjustment by way of determining the ALP transaction by the TPO are also not sustainable in the eyes of law, the order of the TPO (supra) being barred by limitation. Since vide assessment order dated 24-2-2014 AO has made addition on account of determination of ALP of international transaction, such addition stands deleted being order

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 order is invalid and thus entire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant; Final assessment order passed is time barred - The ground was requested to be kept as academic. 1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the final assessment

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

transfer pricing officer passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 31/1/2016. The draft assessment order was passed on 31/3/2016. On objections before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were passed on 13/12/2016, final assessment order on 16/1/2017. 016. In the present case for assessment year 2012 – 13 the period of limitation for making an order

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

transfer pricing officer passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 31/1/2016. The draft assessment order was passed on 31/3/2016. On objections before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were passed on 13/12/2016, final assessment order on 16/1/2017. 016. In the present case for assessment year 2012 – 13 the period of limitation for making an order

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

transfer pricing officer passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 31/1/2016. The draft assessment order was passed on 31/3/2016. On objections before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were passed on 13/12/2016, final assessment order on 16/1/2017. 016. In the present case for assessment year 2012 – 13 the period of limitation for making an order

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

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

transfer pricing officer passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 31/1/2016. The draft assessment order was passed on 31/3/2016. On objections before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were passed on 13/12/2016, final assessment order on 16/1/2017. 016. In the present case for assessment year 2012 – 13 the period of limitation for making an order

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

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

transfer pricing order, the ld AO should not have passed the draft assessment order. Thus provision of section 144C does not apply to the assessee. Thus, the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21 Months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as held by the co-ordinate Bench in ATOS India Private Limited (supra

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

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

transfer pricing order, the ld AO should not have passed the draft assessment order. Thus provision of section 144C does not apply to the assessee. Thus, the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21 Months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as held by the co-ordinate Bench in ATOS India Private Limited (supra