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

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

270A of the Act.” The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a foreign 3. company, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30/11/2017 declaring total loss of INR 72,18,784/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had entered

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 adjustment in respect of ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 transaction of provision for guarantee by applying the rate of 0.5% of the guarantee amount. 2. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in disallowing an amount of ₹ 54,199,690/– under section 14 A of the act. 3. The learned assessing officer/DRP

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 adjustment in respect of ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 transaction of provision for guarantee by applying the rate of 0.5% of the guarantee amount. 2. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in disallowing an amount of ₹ 54,199,690/– under section 14 A of the act. 3. The learned assessing officer/DRP

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

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 ()

8. That the AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 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

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)

section 270A of the Act. ………………………………………………………………………………” 4. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the appellant and learned DR for the respondent revenue. 5. Learned representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that in earlier years, revenue has consistently 4 Omniactive Health Technologies Limited accepted the Transactional Net Marginal Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method relating to the export

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

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

Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated for under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income. iii. Objection No. 3. Ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.99,32,105/- of repair to building expenses Allowed 5 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd. iv. Objection No. 4: Ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.58,30,192/ in respect of meetings and seminar

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

8,60,996 claimed by the\nAppellant in the return of income of AY 2018-19.\nIncorrect levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act\n19. Erred in levying additional interest amounting to INR 1,52,106 under\nSection 234C of the Act.\nInitiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act\n20. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings

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

section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Without prejudice to above grounds Interest u/s. 234B of the Act 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s. 234B amounting to INR 2,143,706/-. The Appellant prays that

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

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 of provision of freight forwarding services, which is bad in law; Rejection of economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant 9. erred

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

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

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

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

Section 270A of the Act.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2017, declaring total income at Rs.414,71,15,235/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) was issued along with questioner. In response to the notice, the representative of the assessee

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

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

Section 270A of the Act.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2017, declaring total income at Rs.414,71,15,235/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) was issued along with questioner. In response to the notice, the representative of the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. Initiation of penalty under section 270A: 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

8 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited this Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors' case (supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra). However, it must be pointed out that in Dharamendra