DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

transfer pricing adjustments whereas Ground No. 8 to 10 are directed against the corporate tax additions/disallowances. Ground No. 11 pertains to short grant of credit of tax deducted at source and tax collected at source amounting to INR 2,06,85,052/-. Ground No. 12 pertains to short grant interest under Section 244A

DCIT -5(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

section 144B of the Act. 1.2. The Appellant prays that the draft assessment order be held as bad in law and consequently, the assessment proceedings and the final assessment order be quashed. 2. Transfer pricing addition on corporate guarantee: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP erred in conforming the action

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:

Pricing. The name of Shri Vatsalya Saxena figures in the list of ‘Officers who are being posted to other station/region’ at Sl.No.11. Thus, he was transferred in the charge of Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) by the Board and the DGIT(IT) posted Shri Vatsalya Saxena vide office order dated 05/04/2011 as TPOII(2). Thus posting orders

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

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

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

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

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

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing 4(1), Mumbai ('the learned TPO learned AO under section 92CA of the Act. 4.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the directions passed by the learned DRP are bad in law to the extent the same are prejudicial to the Appellant. 5. TP adjustment amounting

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

transfer pricing pricing adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be adjustment on commission on the guarantees provided be deleted or be appropriately reduced. deleted or be appropriately reduced. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND GROUND ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND GROUND ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

244A was restricted to ` 24,81,284. It is the claim of the assessee that on the basis of intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act the assessee has offered the amount of ` 44,89,065, as income instead of ` 24,81,284 actually granted to the assessee. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the facts relating

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 244A of the Act. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment INR 42,390,382- Adjustment relating to international transaction

MILLWARD BROWN MARKET RESEARCH SERVICES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalmillward Brown Market Research Services India Private Limited, 702,7Th Floor, Ackruti Star, Midc Central Road, Next To Marole Telephone Exchange, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 093 ..... Appellant

transfer pricing adjustment at nil fails on both counts. Firstly on the account of benefit test which is not to be applied by the TPO and secondly none of the method of benchmarking the international transaction as specified in section 92C has been applied. 12. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below determining arms length price

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

pricing scrutiny. The reason is obvious. ALP is determined for\napplication in respect of transactions between two AEs so that the profit likely\nto arise from such transactions is not under-reported vis-a-vis from similar\ntransactions with third parties. If the comparison is made again with net profit\nmargin realized from transactions between two AEs, instead of third

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

244A(1) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality. 16. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for decision on merits.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10.4. We note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue in the following manner

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

transfer of depreciable assets in case of amalgamation/ demerger/ of depreciable assets in case of amalgamation/ demerger/ of depreciable assets in case of amalgamation/ demerger/ succession of business under section 170 of the IT Act, succession of business under section 170 of the IT Act, succession of business under section 170 of the IT Act, whereas, in the instant case