JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 92F(ii) to mean: `a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions’. This definition covers two eventualities, viz., primarily, `a price which is applied … in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions’ and then, `a price which is … proposed

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment for the four corporate guarantees specified in paragraph 7.2 above. In appeal preferred by the Assessee before CIT(A), it was observed 26. by the CIT(A) that corporate guarantees were given by the Assessee to ICICI Bank, UK on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiaries KEC Transmission LLC and KEC US LLC, USA, for the purpose

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

254 or section 260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

254 or section 260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

254 or section 260 or or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub- section (3). (5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

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

254", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 154", "Section 144C(1)", "Section 156", "Section 115JAA", "Section 90", "Section 244A", "Rule 10B(1)", "Rule 10B(3)", "Section 92C(2)"], "issues": "Whether the assessee is entitled to a working capital adjustment in its transfer pricing

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer pricing methods can be applied in the most reliable manner and for which most reliable comparables can be found. 8.14.There is nothing on record placed by the assessee to analyse whether the assessee or the foreign AE is least complex. Therefore, in view of above discussion, we restore the issue back to the file of the Ld.TPO, with

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:

254,345 Total 941 240,676,668 255,767 Average sales price per unit 255,767 The TPO in respect of product 207-D-31 picked the transaction with one AE i.e. Tata Uganda Ltd. having average FOB of Rs.257,861 and compared it to a transaction with non-AE Nitol Motors Ltd. with an average

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. S.S ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order dated 30 April, 2010 was passed in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e. the amalgamating company. 5. The assessment order dated 31 January, 2011 was passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e., the amalgamating company after the date of amalgamation. 6. The CIT (A) passed

S.S. ORAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS P. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order dated 30 April, 2010 was passed in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e. the amalgamating company. 5. The assessment order dated 31 January, 2011 was passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e., the amalgamating company after the date of amalgamation. 6. The CIT (A) passed

SS ORAL HYGEINE PRODUCTS P.LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3) ( NOW ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ss Oral Hygeine Products Private Dcit Cir 3(3) [Now Commissioner Ltd (Now Merged With Colgate – Of Income Tax – 10(3)] Palmolive (India) Ltd Room No. 450, 4 Th Floor, Aayakar Colgate – Palmolive (India) Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Limited, Colgate Research Centre, 020 Main Street, Near Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing order dated 30 April, 2010 was passed in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e. the amalgamating company. 5. The assessment order dated 31 January, 2011 was passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of „S.S. Oral Hygiene Private Limited‟ i.e., the amalgamating company after the date of amalgamation. 6. The CIT (A) passed

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Transfer Pricing)-2(3), Mumbai (in short „TPO‟) for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of these transactions. One of such transaction was advances given by the assessee to one of its AE for ₹ 2069.94 Lacs. The advances were given to an AE namely EJP KEC Joint Venture, South Africa in various tranches during the year, which has been

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Transfer Pricing)-2(3), Mumbai (in short „TPO‟) for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of these transactions. One of such transaction was advances given by the assessee to one of its AE for ₹ 2069.94 Lacs. The advances were given to an AE namely EJP KEC Joint Venture, South Africa in various tranches during the year, which has been

DCIT-15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KELLOGG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 254(1) of Income tax Act\n\nPER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER,\n\n1. This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by assessee are directed\nagainst the order of learned CIT (A)-56 dated 10.11.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17.\nThe Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:\n\"1.\n2.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

254(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the additions in assessment order dated 25/10/2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144(B), passed in pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 24/09/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.The Assessee has raised following