UNILIVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

Transfer Pricing Officer and not challenged by the assessee before the DRP. To buttress his submission, learned Sr. Counsel drew our attention to section 251

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SYMANTIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer pricing adjustment has been admitted by Hon’ble High Court, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i. DCIT v/s M/s. Crisil Ltd. [ITA No 941/Mum/2008] (Mumbai ITAT) ii. M/s Nayan Builders and Developers P Ltd v/s ITO [ITA No. 2379/Murn./2009 iii. Sudhakar M Shetty

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

251(Guj). We have gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court and find that Gujarat High Court detailed in nouncertain terms that the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be of no relevance. What is to be seen is that the assessee was in indulging in R&D activity

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

price adjustment of Rs 62,21,24,140 in respect of the sale of the steam, (b) erred in not appreciating the apparent fallacy in DRP's holding that as the cost of the steam is more than the ALP (as erroneously computed by the DRP), it was directed that the "the Section 80IA deduction claim emanating from the steam

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

transfer pricing adjustment. He also disallowed claim u/s 35 (2AB) amounting to ₹ 3,876,000, disallowed advertisement expenditure of Rs 475,29,202/–, gift expenses of ₹ 1,650,000, addition on account of damaged stock of ₹ 6,603,000/–, disallowance u/s 14 A of Rs 1,00, ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 26,816/–, disallowed

M/S N. M. SHAH & BROS.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

251 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted before the Bench that assessee has maintained proper records as prescribed under section 92D of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that segmental reporting is not possible when there is no sales to AEs and therefore there is no failure on the part of the assessee

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

251. 2. Erred in proposing transfer pricing adjustment of INR 88,71,465 to the income of the Appellant. Transfer pricing provisions not applicable in absence of "income" 3. Erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the transaction of discharge of purchase consideration by the Appellant pursuant to a scheme of merger approved by the National Company

ASST CIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AJE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground of appeal of the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing adjustment. The cross-objectors contend that on the facts and in the objectors contend that on the facts and in the objectors contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7539/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Addl. Cit–Range-5(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mondelez House बनाम/ Unit Number-2001, 20Th Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Tower-3(Wing-C), India Bulls Finance Centre Parel, Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-0460-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V. Janardhan-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short ‘Ay’] 2008-09 Contest Certain Additions / Disallowances / Adjustments Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 18/10/2012 Passed By Ld. Addl. Cit, Range-

Transfer pricing adjustment 1. Erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in making an adjustment of Rs.281,052,937 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of adjustment in the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. Royalty payment 2. Erred

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SOLTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 5thMay 2015 determined total income of the assessee at a loss of ₹5,13,63,202/- against the return loss of ₹12,91,71,248/-. 09. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order dated 31stJanuary 2018, wherein he upheld that foreign Associated Enterprises is correctly

STAR INDIA PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T.-RANGE311(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer has already been obtained and the issue requires proper examination by the Assessing Officer in the light of the report of TPO, detailed analysis of licence fee paid and other evidences filed by the assessee, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the matter is restored to the file

MINDSCREST (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

Transfer Pricing Officer with the direction. Therefore, ground no.2, raised by the Revenue also allowed for statistical purpose. 19. With regard to ground no.3, the Revenue has raised this ground to question the power of the learned CIT(A) and as per section 251

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7284/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd Acit-7(3)(1) T-8B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix House, A-Wing Room No.142 G बनाम/ Phoenix Mill Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 462 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-2914-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.Ar ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 26/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest Certain Additions / Adjustment Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2018 Passed By Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-7(3)(1), Mumbai [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13), Pursuant To The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai

Transfer Pricing Officer in this case. The case law referred by the ld. Departmental Representative are distinguishable on the facts of this case. Upon perusal of the same, we find that TNMM method as adopted by the assessee in earlier years has constantly been accepted to be the Most Appropriate Method as against the observation of Ld. TPO that

SATELLITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C(13) of the Income–tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10. 2. In grounds no.1, to 4, the assessee has challenged the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to ` 42,00,08,539. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee is a non–resident company incorporated in Hong Kong

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

251 is allowable under section 37 of the Act; and 5.2 The CIT erred in holding that the learned AO has not verified whether only unavailed credits of the year under consideration have been allowed or cumulative credits of various years has also been allowed. Ground no 6 Without prejudice to Ground nos 1 & 2 above, the learned

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

transfer is planned followed by scoping of work that needs to be done onsite as it requires proximity to customer and the work that can be offshored. Second, there is a need of certain technical staff to be onsite for better understanding of customer's ongoing requirements and translating the same to the offshore team for cost effective and timely

GTS E-SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gts E-Services Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(4) 103, A-Wing Kensinton Room No.15B, Ground Floor बनाम/ Hiranandani Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Hiranandani Builder Sez Mumbai-400 020. Powai, Mumbai-400 076. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-8662-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. Cit-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/06/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under that Explanation. He placed reliance upon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book profits under Section 115JB of the Act :- i. Apollo Tyres: 255 ITR 273(SC) ii. Malayalam

JUNGHEINRICH LIFT TRUCK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Asst. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited 203 204, 2 N D Floor Tax Vs. Delphi A Wing, Central Avenue, Circle 15(2)(2) Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccj7808G

transfer pricing study reports are also at variance, accordingly he made an adjustment of ₹ 3,251,464/– determining the arm's-length price of the same at Rs. Nil. Accordingly, order under section