LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

transfer pricing ITA No.398/MUM/2019 & 595/MUM/2022 Lintas India Private Limited.;A.Y. 2014-15,2017-18 addition without undertaking any comparable analysis and applying Other Method (Need Evidence Benefit Test method) whichit not a prescribed methods a provided under section 92C (1) of the Act. 12. On fact and cons of the case and in law, the learned

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment,\nand initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A separately.\n3. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed in conformity

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing adjustments across\nmultiple operational segments, and corporate tax matters\nsuch as disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), mismatch\nbetween the tax audit report and the return of income, short\ngrant of advance tax credit, levy of interest under sections\n234B and 234D, and initiation of penalty proceedings under\nsection 270A

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

Transfer Pricing- 3(2)(1), Mumbai, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: 1.1. not appreciating that explanation to section 92B of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 does not alter the basic character of the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 928 and therefore, since provision of guarantee (by the assessee

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

Transfer Pricing- 3(2)(1), Mumbai, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: 1.1. not appreciating that explanation to section 92B of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 does not alter the basic character of the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 928 and therefore, since provision of guarantee (by the assessee

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Transfer pricing (TP") adjustment in respect of purchase of equity shares of Sutures India Private Limited (SIPL) and Quality Needles Private Limited ("QNPL') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO of determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international

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 adjustment has already been made on the principal transactions of sale of goods and service and thus, such adjustment constitutes double additions. Without prejudice to the above: 5 ITA 4840/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 5.4.That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Assessee practices a uniform policy of not charging interest from

OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 15,93,35,145/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the export of goods entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned

SALTWATER STUDIO LLP,MUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

Transfer Pricing adjustments of Rs. 113,19,65,878/- in relation to AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee-Company are sustained, Penalty proceedings u/s.274 read with Section 270A

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of technical know-how fees of INR 190,330,332 paid by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed TPO/AU erred in holding, and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in directing, that the arm's length price in respect of technical

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92CA(1)", "92C(3)", "92C(1)", "234C", "270A", "92B", "92A", "92F(ii)", "10AB", "92", "230", "232", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

Transfer Pricing Adjustment is deleted. As a result, Ground No.2 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 16 17. Ground No.3 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.6,97,76,862/- made by\nthe Ld. AO/TPO on account of royalty for central services is deleted. The\nassessee's appeal on Ground Nos.1 to 5 stands allowed.\n8. Ground No. 6 relates to the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act,\nwhich is consequential in nature. Ground No. 7 pertains

KONGSBERG MARITIME CM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDLL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO-NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Grounds Determination of Arm's Length Price ("ALP") for Provision of marketing support services, Provision of application engineering services and Provision of after-sales support services 2. violated the principal of natural justice by not providing any show cause notice/opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before proposing an adjustment on account of the captioned international transactions

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 270A of the Act.”\nThe issue arising in Ground No.1 raised in assessee's appeal, pertains\nto the transfer pricing

KANTAR ANALYTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIREFLY MARKET RESERCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANALYTICS QUOTIENT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

transfer pricing adjustment\n6. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned TPO, the AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting\nthe benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using\nOther Method, as the most appropriate method and computing the\ntransfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable\nanalysis or applying

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment by modifying the economic analysis for determination of arm's length price: Rejection of comparables selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation 10. erred in rejecting functionally comparable company i.e. Atlas Logistics Private Limited on the basis that it is incurring losses in two out of three years without appreciating that only persistent loss-making companies