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

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not following Hon‟ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant's own case for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO, under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not following Hon‟ble Tribunal's ruling in Appellant's own case for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 in relation to above international transactions, more so considering that there

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A, section 271, section 271A,section 271J or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January

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

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

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 ()

2. That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in making the upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 35,76,46,432/- on account of international transaction of purchase and sale of goods and services entered into with AEs is not in accordance with law. 2.1.That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in adopting an approach

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)

270A. The grounds, as raised, stand reproduced in\nextenso hereinbelow:-\nGeneral Ground:\n1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe AU/Ld. AO- NaFAC Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Hon'ble\nDRP have erred in completing the assessment of the Appellant\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) and 144B of the Act,\nwherein the total

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

270A of the Act. 6. General 6.1 Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 2) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 248,06,02,790/-. The assessee company is a non- 4 ITA No. 457 Mum 2022-SPE India Films

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

270A of the Act.” The issue arising in Ground No.1 raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transaction pertaining to non-binding investment advisory and support services rendered by the assessee to its associated enterprises. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. Erred in proposing transfer pricing adjustment of INR 88,71,465 to the income of the Appellant. Transfer pricing provisions not applicable in absence of "income" 3. Erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the transaction of discharge of purchase consideration by the Appellant pursuant to a scheme of merger approved by the National Company

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

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

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

2: TPO Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.40,06,846/- in relation to provision of IT support services -Rejected As, the additions on account of Transfer Pricing adjustments of Rs.40.06,846/- in relation to provision of IT support services are sustained, Penalty proceedings u/s.274 read with Section 270A

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.26,79,29,490/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to assessee along with

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

270A\nof the Act.\nThe Appellant prays that the additions made by the learned\nAO/TPO and upheld by the learned DRP be deleted and\nconsequential relief be granted.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or\nwithdraw any of the above grounds of appeal and to submit such\nstatements, documents and papers as may be considered\nnecessary either

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

270A for the said previous year. Explanation. —For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value

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 ()

2-Final Assessment Order is had in law On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AU erred in passing the assessment order dated 29 July 2024 passed under Section 143(3) r.w Section 144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Act beyond the time limit as specified under Section

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 270A of the Act be quashed.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is private limited company and is engaged in the business of warehousing, transportation service, express delivery and other related business. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 12/02/2021, declaring loss of Rs.90,99,92,346/-. The case