PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

26,99,018/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C was passed on 30th November, 2015, wherein the only adjustment is the transfer pricing

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction company (JV) versus the Commissioner of income tax – 18, Mumbai

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction company (JV) versus the Commissioner of income tax – 18, Mumbai

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction company (JV) versus the Commissioner of income tax – 18, Mumbai

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer prior to that date cannot be made subject to revision by the respective revisionary authorities. 017. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of i. ITA number 2895/M/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Metacaps Engineering and Mahindra construction company (JV) versus the Commissioner of income tax – 18, Mumbai

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as understood by Sec. 2(26

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as understood by Sec. 2(26

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act gathered information ct gathered information from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under: by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

transfer pricing order by the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act in the name of FEIPL. Thus, as on the date of passing of order by the TPO on 30.01.2015, FEIPL did not exist as an Indian company under the Companies Act, 1956 as 18 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited understood by Sec. 2(26

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

Transfer Pricing Officer and observations of Ld.DRP at Page No. 89 to 93 of the Ld. DRP Order and he also objected to the recharacterizing of the transaction as deemed loan by the tax authorities. He also brought to our notice Page No. 109 of the Ld. DRP order and their conclusions. 17. Ld.AR of the assessee basically objected that

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. 15.1. During the relevant previous year, the AEs of the Assessee incurred certain expenses relating to salary and other related costs of the employees who were seconded to the Assessee and who worked under the supervision, management and control of the Assessee. Subsequently the Assessee reimbursed these expenses incurred

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 92CA(2) of the Act. The learned TPO proposed the following transfer pricing (TP) adjustments vide its order dated, 1 November 2019 :- Particulars of TP Adjustment Amount (in INR) 1 Adjustment on account of 1,08,99,66,623 alleged Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses 2. Adjustment on account of 6,26

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

Section 92C of the Income Tin Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the transaction. Parishi Diamonds 12 CONCLUSION. As the firm has also sold diamonds to independent parties

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation