THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

price at which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

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

9 and making observations under Clause 18 was purely\nout of abundant caution, with a categorical assertion that the\nimpugned transaction was between two domestic associated\nenterprises and that transfer pricing provisions were not\napplicable.\n5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the\norders of the lower authorities and placed reliance on the\ndirections of the DRP. The DR submitted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9,212,742 / - to be deleted. 3. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Without prejudice to above grounds Interest u/s. 234B

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 ()

270A of the Act The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents, and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of this appeal as per law” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee either company engaged

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

270A: 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Order barred by limitation: 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order

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

270A of the Act.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, vary, omit, substitute or\namend any of the above grounds at any time before or during hearing before\nthe Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal according to law.\"\n3. Grounds no. 1 and 2 are general in nature and therefore, need no\nseparate adjudication.\n4. The issue

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

9 - Incorrect computation of interest under Section 234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 13.98,175 under Section 234C instead of Rs.11,91,466. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to recompute the interest under Section 234C as per law. Emerson Electric Company

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

9. erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant for the international transaction of provision of freight forwarding services in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and imputing a transfer pricing adjustment by modifying the economic analysis for determination of arm's length price: Rejection of comparables selected by the Appellant

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

270A of the Act.\nOrder barred by limitation\n8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final\nassessment order dated 30th June 2024 passed under section 143(3) read with\nsection 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21 is void and bad in\nlaw as it has been passed

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

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

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 adjustment in relation to international transaction\npertaining to non-binding investment advisory and support services rendered\nby the assessee to its associated enterprises.\n5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record