THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

32(1) (ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of Appellant should

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company. With

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company. With

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

32. Let us now examine the relevant procedures relating to Transfer Pricing. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-Section (1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA

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

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. 15.1. During the relevant previous year, the AEs of the Assessee incurred certain expenses relating to salary and other related costs of the employees who were seconded to the Assessee and who worked under the supervision, management and control of the Assessee. Subsequently the Assessee reimbursed these expenses incurred

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign (ii) company.” 31. The aforesaid section envisages that, AO in the first instance has to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the "eligible assessee

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

32(1)(ii) of the Act, which is reproduced for ready\nreference:\n\"Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of\nbuildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how,\npatents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the\npredecessor and the successor

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

32. Let us now examine the relevant procedures relating to Transfer Pricing. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA

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

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

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

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

II (DRP') and the final assessment order\npassed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 15(3)(1),\nMumbai (\"DCIT\") are bad in law and merit to be set aside.\n2. Ground 2 - Depreciation on contracts - Acquisition from\nGlaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd ('GSK') in AY 2008-09\n2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

32. Let us now examine the relevant procedures relating to Transfer Pricing. After an international transaction is noticed subject to satisfaction of section 92B, a reference is made to the TPO under sub-section (1) of section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under section 92CA

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AEs. The facts of this ground are that the assessee company had given corporate guarantee aggregating to Euro 6 million equivalent to Rs.40,73,40,000/- on behalf of its AEs namely ACG Lukaps d.o.o, Croatia for availing various credit facilities from Zagrabacka Banka, Croatia

DCIT- CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AEs. The facts of this ground are that the assessee company had given corporate guarantee aggregating to Euro 6 million equivalent to Rs.40,73,40,000/- on behalf of its AEs namely ACG Lukaps d.o.o, Croatia for availing various credit facilities from Zagrabacka Banka, Croatia

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AEs. The facts of this ground are that the assessee company had given corporate guarantee aggregating to Euro 6 million equivalent to Rs.40,73,40,000/- on behalf of its AEs namely ACG Lukaps d.o.o, Croatia for availing various credit facilities from Zagrabacka Banka, Croatia

DCIT CC- 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AEs. The facts of this ground are that the assessee company had given corporate guarantee aggregating to Euro 6 million equivalent to Rs.40,73,40,000/- on behalf of its AEs namely ACG Lukaps d.o.o, Croatia for availing various credit facilities from Zagrabacka Banka, Croatia