HAPAG LLOYD INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer framed draft assessment orders which were objected to the assessee before learned DRP. On rejection of assessee’s objections by learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment orders which are subject matter of appeal in the present proceedings. 5 Hapag–Lloyd India P. Ltd. 5. Shri Rajan Vora, learned Counsel

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

254 of the Act and the appeal order on the issue was recalled. He submitted, that while deciding the issue afresh in ITA no. 7513/Mum./2010, dated 23rd March 2017, the Tribunal has held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring software for trading purpose is not in the nature of royalty. Hence, there is no requirement for deduction

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

transfer pricing related disallowances. S.No. Particulars Amount (INR) 1. Disallowance of carry forward and set-off of 49,25,34,311 unabsorbed depreciation allowance 2. Disallowance of interest expense under section 11,380 40(a)(ia) paid to non-banking financial institution 3. Disallowance of interest expenses claimed 5,37,76,428 4. Addition of exchange gain on repayment

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

254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

Transfer Pricing Officer was intended to apply CUP method, however, not properly applied. He submitted that CUP method is only method applicable in the peculiar facts of the case. Page 11 of 29 Castrol India Limited 20. Ld. DR submitted that to determine the cost allocation what is relevant is cost based and the allocation key for allocation

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

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

section 14A of the Act of ₹ 8,54,430/-. 010. The assessee aggrieved with the above order-preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 8 February 2016 allowing the appeal of the assessee partly. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds as per grounds of appeal

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

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

transfer- pricing officer of ₹ 181,034,113/– based on the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel for earlier assessment years. The disallowance of warranty expenditure of Rs. 3 73,10,658/– disallowance of provision for the commission of Rs 170,99,895/-, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of ₹ 363,69,080/- on account of warranty expenditure as payment

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

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

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

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the view that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken pains to examine in detail the alternative benchmarking done by the assessee with foreign ITA Nos. 3263 & 3746/Mum/2017

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 price is determined by an APA entered into by the assessee u/s. 92CC on or after 01 April 2017, the assessee shall make a secondary adjustment. Thus, the primary as well as the secondary adjustments are to be made in the case of the same assessee. In other words, if section 92CE were to be applied post 1st April