GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 10A of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned AU erred in reducing the telecommunication charges only from the export turnover and not from both, i.e total turnover and export turnover, in computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO')\nunder the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred\non facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 11,97,15,774 and Rs.\n6,34,82,242 to the international transactions of provision of data\nprocessing and software services respectively of the Appellant based

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer himself has allowed working capital adjustment to the assessee. That being the case, we direct the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment while computing the margins of the comparables.” 34. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment keeping

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

34 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 AE on ECB loan is correct. On perusal of the facts and material on record, we are of the view that determination of arm's length price of interest charged on ECB loan at USD LIBOR rate plus 143.62 basis points is arrived at on the basis of average of 46 companies in Bloomberg Database. From

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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.

34,299 computed by the Appellant; Levy of Interest under section 234C of the Act 27. erred in upholding interest under section 234C of the Act; Levy of Interest under section 234D of the Act 28. erred in upholding interest under section 234D of the Act; Penalty proceedings 29. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 15/02/2012. 2 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. Addition on account of Arm's Length Price by TPO Rs. 24,91,59,200/- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding rejection

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 regulations do not apply to the assessee, to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships, since the assessee is a company registered under the Tonnage Tax Scheme ('TTS') provided under the Act. The facts in the year under consideration are not different from those in assessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12, where the very

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer accepts that some services have been rendered, however, he has made a general observation that such services do not have any value and has proceeded to determine the arm's length price on a purely on ad–hoc basis. Whereas, the reading of the AAR ruling, referred to above, clearly demonstrate that highly specialized services, in fact

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck

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 Officer to verify whether there was any involvement of the Assessee in the direct sales 21 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. made by the AE in India. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007-08. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. GLOBE OP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 143(3) adding the amount of ` 2,62,84,830. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and on a perusal of the material on record, accepted the contention of the assessee that two companies selected

VFS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10, pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)–II, Mumbai. 2. Ground no.1, being general in nature, there is no need to adjudicate the same. 3. At the outset, learned Authorised Representative submitted, he did not wish to press grounds

THE ACIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

34,99,840 finished goods CPM Import of machinery ` 3,23,20,061 CPM Payment of royalty ` 56,30,506 4 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 4. After verifying the transfer pricing study report, the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted the aggregation and benchmarking of all international transactions with the AEs, except, the transaction relating to payment of royalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

section 92CA of the Act to Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction. In course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer after verifying the audit report and other materials on record found that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has entered into

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could