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

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

3) read with sections 144C(13) and 144B, assessing\nthe total income at Rs. 63,49,99,325/-, after making an addition\nof Rs. 46,45,29,035/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment,\nand initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

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

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

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

3 M/s. DSV Air & Sea Pvt. Ltd. [Successor to Panalpina World Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.] Transfer Pricing grounds Reference to the TPO 8. erred in making a reference of the Appellant's case to the TPO, without complying to provisions of Section 92CA, thereby making a transfer pricing (TP") adjustment of Rs.7,36.21,080 in respect of the international transaction

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 ()

270A read with section 274 of the Act for the alleged under-reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal and consider each of the grounds as without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal.” Brief facts

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

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

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. TPO. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to compute the total taxable income as Rs. 2.18,46,93.421/-instead of Rs. 2,18,87.79,755. 3. Ground no. 3 TP adjustment on account of provision of IT Support and related services (ITeS) segment - INR 4,56,43,738 On the facts

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment for non-binding investment advisory and support services lacked merit. For IT-enabled services, the issue of comparability of R Systems International Ltd. was remanded to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)", "144C(1)", "253(1)", "234A", "270A

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)

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is ab-initio void being barred by limitation and hence, ought to be struck down. 2:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. ………………………………………………………………………………” 4. Perused the records and heard

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

3) read with section 144C(13), incorporating the transfer\npricing adjustments.\n9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the assessee has filed the\npresent appeals. Following are the specific grounds:\n Assessment Year 2015–16 - ITA 4156-MUM-2025\nGeneral:\n1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law,\nthe learned AO erred in determining

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relate The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to deduction of to deduction of Rs.4

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relate The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to deduction of to deduction of Rs.4

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 ()

transfer pricing benchmarking methodology as prescribed under the TP regulations. 4.7. Without prejudice, where such recharacterization relating to any reimbursement made by the Appellant is accepted, in case of the inbound segment, a consequential and commensurate deduction ought to be allowed vis-à-vis such reimbursements towards the arm's length compensation computed at a mark

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

3) of the Act in\nrespect of AE, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the royalty payment to be at arm's\nlength. That being the case, the arm's length price of royalty payment at the hands of the\nassessce cannot be determined at nil. In any case of the matter, it is not disputed that the\nassessee

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 of the Act, which is premature in nature. Accordingly, Ground No.3 is dismissed. 18. Ground No.4 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains