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,(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

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

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

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

HAFELE INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

271G of the Act. 7. Vide Final Assessment Order, dated 12.10.2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer determining total income of the Appellant at INR 12,81,31,580/- after making transfer pricing

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

transfer pricing guidelines issued by OECD do not prohibited foreign AE to be a tested party, therefore, where assessee company was a more complex entity when compared to its foreign AE, said foreign AE could be selected as a tested party. The Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT versus Inventors Knowledge Solution (P) limited (2022) 145 taxmann.com 514(Mumbai-Trib) also held

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EUROSTAR DIAMONDS INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eurostar Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., 710-711, Raheja Chambers Room No. 607, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacce1920A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer and above all when there is no adjustment made in the Arm’s Length Price, the levy of penalty under section 271G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee

DY. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX 5(1)(1),, MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE the assessee was required to compare profitability of the AE segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee was segment with the comparables and therefore, the assessee

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Income Tax – 5(1)(1) बनाम Pvt. Ltd., Fc 7081 7082, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G- Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd6676J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. 7.2 Moreover, penalty u/s 271G of the Act is discretionary, not automatic and mandatory. It is imposed only where there is substantive and unjustifiable non-compliance. The intention behind the section

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment was required to be made to the Total Income\nreturned by the Appellant in respect of the rate of interest charged by the Appellant\nfrom its said AEs, the Ld AO-DRP has erred in law and in fact in upholding the\nmethod adopted by AO/TPO for determining the ALP of interest @12.50% on the\noutstanding dues

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 271G for failing to furnish documents and information related to transfer pricing.", "held": "The Tribunal held that there was no finding

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION, INC, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

Section 92D(3) of the Act r.w.r.10D of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee filed further information / documents requested by the TPO during the course of the transfer pricing assessment proceedings and the transfer pricing assessments were duly completed by the TPO. 6. Notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271G

DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARJAV DIAMONDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Transfer Pricing Officer for determining arm's length price. In the present case, it is not a fact that the assessee has not maintained any information as required under section 92D(1) r/w rule 10D(1). The facts on record clearly indicate that the assessee, Indeed, has maintained a number of information/documents as required under the statutory provisions. In fact

DCIT-5(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. INTERJEWEL PVT LTD, OPERA HOUSE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Interjewel Private Limited, 1508, Prasad Income Tax, Ward – 5(2)(1), बनाम Chambers, Opera House, Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Mumbai, –400004, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Maharashtra Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd5877B .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Transfer Pricing proceedings, details and documents relating to international transactions as called for were filed and the same were examined by the TPO. Subsequently, the TPO issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271G to the assessee asking to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271G should not be initiated as the assessee company without reasonable cause failed to furnish information