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

Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (OECD Guidelines'), secondary adjustment is an adjustment that arises from imposing tax on a constructive transaction that some countries will assert under their domestic legislation after having proposed a primary adjustment in order to make the actual allocation of profits consistent with the primary adjustment. Secondary transactions may take the form

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to ₹ 476,28,58,044/- vide his order dated 29.01.2016 under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The quantum adjustments made by TPO are now pending before the Tribunal in consequent appeal. In the meantime, the TPO issued notice under section 271G

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to ₹ 476,28,58,044/- vide his order dated 29.01.2016 under section 92CA(3) of the Act. The quantum adjustments made by TPO are now pending before the Tribunal in consequent appeal. In the meantime, the TPO issued notice under section 271G

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

Section 92C of the Income Tin Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the Act, 1961, for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the transaction. Parishi Diamonds 12 CONCLUSION. As the firm has also sold diamonds to independent parties

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS AG ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING CIRCLE -4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Section 92D (3) of the Act read with Rule 10D. The TPO thereafter passed Transfer Pricing order determining a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 49,86,862/-.Thereafter, penalty notice u/s 271G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKIT GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271G of the Act and ultimately imposed penalty for an amount

ASST. CIT 32 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPU GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax 32(2), M/S Kapu Gems, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, E Tower, Ec-3021, Bharat C-41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Bandra East, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfk 3266 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Deharia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

section 271G is imposed after establishing a specific default which is specific default which is non-production of documents and production of documents and information presc information prescribed under Rule 10D when called for ribed under Rule 10D when called for by Transfer Pricing

M/S N. M. SHAH & BROS.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the benchmarking of the assessee, the imposition of penalty under section 271C of the Act is unsustainable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative dealing with identical issue of imposition of penalty under section 271G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SIEMENS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

Price value, made an adjustment of Rs.8,11,80,479/-. 9. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271G of the Act were initiated on the basis that the assessee has not furnished the information or documentation as required under section 92D(3) of the Act in respect of the international transaction not reported by the assessee. Vide order dated

VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271G. If any person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction fails to furnish any such information or document as required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN GEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

271G of the Act submitted, due to non– maintenance of documents the Transfer Pricing Officer found it difficult to determine the arm’s length price of the transaction with the AEs, hence, was compelled to accept the price charged by the assessee. Thus, he submitted, the penalty imposed under section

ASST. CIT-6 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ENHANCE AMBIENT COMMUNICATION PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer to follow in computation of Arm's Length Price and 92C which deals with computation of Arm's Length Price and corresponding to these two sections, penalty under section 271G

ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. D A JHAVERI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Assessing Officer and CO of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J Co No. 120/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1971/Mum/2017 For Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022

Transfer Pricing Officer held that assessee has not maintained the relevant CO No. 120/Mum/2017 M/s DA Jhaveri; AY 11-12 documentation under Rule 10D (1) of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules’). Thus, penalty proceeding was initiated under section 271G

ACIT-5(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANKIT GEMS PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

section 271G of the Act, it is evident, the Transfer Pricing Officer has proceeded to impose penalty under the aforesaid

DY.CIT -5(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer in his order mentioned that assessee has entered into international transaction of performance guarantee, corporate guarantee and interest on advances given to its Associated Enterprises and the penalty may be initiated under Section 271G

KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer in his order mentioned that assessee has entered into international transaction of performance guarantee, corporate guarantee and interest on advances given to its Associated Enterprises and the penalty may be initiated under Section 271G

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

transfer pricing adjustment is done by the AO and not when the said exercise is done by the TPO u/s 92CA, and the AO under the scheme of the Act has merely adopted what is stated by the TPO in his order. This is also fortified by Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) where the reference is to section

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(3)-1, MUMBAI

In the result assessee's appeals stand allowed

section 271G levied by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) to the appellant’s income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances