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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order under section

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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order under section

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

263 of the income tax act and held that the impugned order of the learned transfer-pricing officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He directed the learned transfer-pricing officer to make fresh order under section

3I INFOTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm 3I Infotech Limited Pcit-15 Tower No.5, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Vs. International Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci5205Q Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, Shri Jay Dharod, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.203 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. (b) The Id. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking the revisionary powers under section 263

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

JMJ GANPATIJI MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal

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

transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors. 7.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the upfront discount extended to the pre-paid distributors by terming the arrangement as 'Principal to Agent instead

KKR INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - CIRCLE -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kkr India Advisors Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited 2Nd Floor, Piramal Tower, Tax, Circle 6 515, Aaykar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Maharshi Karve Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5826G

263 of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer on 26 June 2019 referred the international transaction to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer with direction of the learned PCIT. Consequent to that, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order under Section

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

RED HAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263 and more specifically the deeming\nprovisions of Explanation 2 of the Act brought into the statute w.e.f.\n01.06.2025, as below:\nSection-263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.\n(1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any\nproceeding under this

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 92F(ii) that no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have passed on such huge contract amount exceeding Rs.622.57 Crores without charging or retaining any commission." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the name lending and front end entity activities done

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263 and Explanation 2 of the Act thereof as below:\nSection-263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.\n(1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any\nproceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the\nAssessing Officer

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In view of above n view of above, we feel

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 263 which reads as follows:- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. "263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 263 and Explanation 2 of the Act as\nbelow:\nSection-263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.\n(1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner] orCommissioner may call for and examine the record of any\nproceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by\nthe Assessing Officer [or the Transfer

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

sections 45, 50A, 50C and 50D etc., substituting the full value of consideration and to sec. 49 substituting cost of acquisition in the computation of income under the head `Capital gains’. Since the transfer pricing provisions are based on the ALP concept, the fair market value is alien to the CUP method, which, in turn, seeks to compare the transacted

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