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

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\nand 244A

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\nand 244A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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