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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

section 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final 253, which empowers it to adjudicate appeals against final assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being an assessment orders passed by the AO. The DRP not being

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

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was made in order to determine the arm’s length price of the international transaction, the assessee is having with its 4 ITA 7104/Mum/2017 ITA 7404/Mum/2018 Mondelez India Foods P Ltd Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO, vide order dated 31/10/2016 proposed a total adjustment of Rs.253,73,00,819/- as per the break up given below

DCIT,CIR-6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIAGEO INDIA PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253 of the Act on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ Transfer Pricing

DIAGEO INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253 of the Act on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ Transfer Pricing

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 officer i.e. at the rate of 0.20% i.e. 0.04% of the amount of letter of comfort is chargeable. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 90,490/–. 021. We find that identical issue arose in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein the coordinate bench on identical facts and circumstances in ITA number

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(IT) CIR. 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC. ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RG 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, when an adjustment is made to ALP under section 92C, it is provided that the corresponding benefit is not to be given to the AE. However, in contrast, the APA under section 92CC is a voluntary agreement between an assessee and the Department and is not a determination by the AO/TPO where the ALP declared

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned AO disbelieved

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 03. Fact shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pumps for industrial use and is a part of Sulzer group based in Switzerland. Assessee filed return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of ₹ 886,320,310/–. The return of income was picked

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

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure. Ground raised is allowed. 24. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in turn relying on the decision of Assessment Year 2006-07. These issues are settled in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, these

BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

253 (Del.). 18. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the observations of learned DRP in Para–2.4 of the order, the rejection of these companies was upheld only on the ground of having