HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, inter-alia, upheld the transfer pricing adjustment on account of payment made for availing Investment Advisory Services. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 26. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year, SAML

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, inter-alia, upheld the transfer pricing adjustment on account of payment made for availing Investment Advisory Services. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 26. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year, SAML

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition, if any, after determining\narms length rate of performance guarantee commission in respect of\nthe transaction under consideration as per the prescribed method\nkeeping in view the terms of the performance guarantee including\nthe cap on the maximum liability of the Assessee in terms of the\nsame. Since we have restored the issue back to the file

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

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

price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of price and can’t adopt arbitrary method of converting floating rate of interest into fixed rate of interest. interest into fixed rate of interest. 8.10 In view of above n view of above, we feel

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

transfer pricing addition, if any, after determining\narms length rate of performance guarantee commission in respect of\nthe transaction under consideration as per the prescribed method\nkeeping in view the terms of the performance guarantee including\nthe cap on the maximum liability of the Assessee in terms of the\nsame. Since we have restored the issue back to the file

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Section 274 of the Act, we note that the same did not make any reference to furnishing of inaccurate 13 Assessment Year: 2010-11 particulars of income in relation to the transfer pricing

DHL LOGISTICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation maintained by the Appellant in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules); 4.2 failing to appreciate the economic rationale of using "Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenses" as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), and instead using "Operating Profit/ Total Cost (OP/TC

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

transfer-pricing officer accordingly.”\n34.\nTherefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal cited supra, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude Aspire Systems\n(India) Pvt. Ltd. while benchmarking the international transaction pertaining\nto \"Receipt from Software Development Services”.\n(b) Cyber Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.\n35.\nThe next comparable challenged by the assessee is Cyber Infrastructure

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 ()

transfer pricing adjustment has already been made on the principal transactions of sale of goods and service and thus, such adjustment constitutes double additions. Without prejudice to the above: 5 ITA 4840/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 5.4.That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Assessee practices a uniform policy of not charging interest from

BRISTOL-MAYOR SQUIBB INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSST/ ITO,NFAC, DEHI/DY CIT,CIE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Authorities Below & Therefore, Could Not Be Permitted In The Appellate Proceedings To Set Up A New Case.

Section 92CA(3) of the Act on 01/11/2019 proposing transfer pricing adjustment of INR 75,96,85,274/-. The Assessing

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment income of Indian Branches TP Adjustment towards taxability in India at Ground No.24 & Ground No.14 & 50% of commission earned by Hong Kong 25 15 Branch on ECB to Indian borrowers TP adjustment in the hands of Indian Branch Ground No.8 Ground No.16 towards commission on back to back Bank guarantee extended to AE Ground No.9 Ground No.17

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as no case is made out by the AO that the Appellant has concealed any particulars of income/ furnished inaccurate particulars to the learned AO either in the tax return or during the assessment proceedings. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, or delete all or any of the grounds

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer on 2nd November, 2017, which resulted into an order passed under Section 92CA (3) of Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 the Act dated 30th October, 2018, wherein Arm's Length Price of royalty is determined at 1.15% of the net selling price and an adjustment to the extent

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

pricing / DRP proceedings 7.5 Grossly erred in arriving at the value per share based on the financials of Strides SA Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd pertaining to the period December 2010 (being FY 2010-11) ^ instead of adopting the value per share in the year of transfer. 7.6 The Learned AO while passing the final order has erred in considering the amount

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

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 dated 17 April 2025 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act for AY 2015-16 is void

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

transfer pricing study report: i. Akshay Software Technologies Limited ii. CG-Vak Software & Exports Ltd iii. E-zest Solution Limited iv. Helios & Matheson Technologies Limited v. Mindtree Ltd Seg vi. R Systems International Ltd. vii. Tata Elxsi Ltd. 3:12 The AO/TPO/CIT (A) erred on facts in arriving at a new set of comparable companies by adding following companies