M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

section 153 is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the final assessment order dated 2 April 2014 is time barred and liable to be quashed. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the grounds of appeal no. 1 to 24 pertains to transfer pricing issues and ground

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing provisions and the same therefore ought to be deleted. Interest under section 234B 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs.3,48,71,080/- Interest under section 234C 20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

Transfer Pricing Officer erred in not sharing complete details/ information collated under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of contracts between associated enterprise and third parties and on the basis this information obtained under section 133(6) erred in concluding that the Assessee is acting as an agent on behalf of its associated

JSW ENERGY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Transfer Pricing Study Report as one of the basis for levy of Penalty under this Section. Section 271G has to be seen independently of the final adjustment made by the TPO in the ALP of the transactions with AE. It is important to mention that in case an ALP adjustment was made in the case of the assessee then

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing 4. documentation maintained by the Appellant as per rule 10D (1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962”. 5. “the learned AO/ TPO erred in selecting Resale Price Method (‘RPM’) as the most appropriate method and in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) selected by the appellant”. 6. “the learned AO/ TPO erred in rejecting the certain comparables

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CASTROL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

transfer pricing adjustment which became final is the amount of ` 3,75,000 towards arm's length price of export of lubricants. 18. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is laconic as he has not considered the issue in proper perspective as far as the imposition of penalty under section 271

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. SYMANTIC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

transfer pricing adjustment of ` 92 lakh to the arm's length price proves that the price charged was not at arm’s length. Referring to Explanation–7 to section 271

NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Unit 501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. Pan:Aaaca 9649L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent It(Tp)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By : Shri Debashish Chand Date Of Hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2016

Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.3,19,51,284/- deserves to be set-aside. We hold so. Thus, in so far as Ground of Appeal No.22& 23 are concerned, the same are allowed. 14. In so far as Grounds of Appeal No. 24,25 & 26 are concerned, the same relate to charging of interest under section

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer, the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own business made

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 the time of grant of options) of Rs. 2.48.85,009 under section 37(1) of the Act 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld AO and Hon'ble DRP erred

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

transfer pricing regulations cannot be applicable to the said transaction. Transaction akin to stewardship activity 4. erred in not appreciating the fact that the alleged loan was given for the purpose of acquiring a controlling stake in company outside India, which was in the same business of the Appellant, and hence the transaction was akin to stewardship activity which does

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’), Assessing Officer vide order dated 05/01/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, inter-alia, computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,58,10,770. Simultaneously, notice under section 274 read with section 271

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses of salary and related cost on deputation of personnel in India. (1) Ground No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D and 244A of the Act (m) Ground No. 9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act (n) Ground No. 10 : Non-Grant