VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR\n93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses\nof salary and related cost on deputation of personnel\nin India.\n(1)\nGround No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D\nand 244A of the Act\n(m) Ground No. 9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits\nunder Section 115JB of the Act\n(n)\nGround

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR\n93,12,637/- pertaining to Reimbursement of Expenses\nof salary and related cost on deputation of personnel\nin India.\n(1)\nGround No. 8: Levy of interest under Section 234D\nand 244A of the Act\n(m) Ground No. 9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits\nunder Section 115JB of the Act\n(n)\nGround

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of invoice/bills ought to be allowed. Even

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that - (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of M/s. Asian Paints invoice/bills ought

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

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 40 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. appellant cannot be said to be an ‘eligible assessee’ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an ‘ineligible assessee’, the very foundation

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

pricing adjustment was warranted. The decision of CIT(A) to hold LIBOR + 1% as arm’s length rate of interest in respect of loan for AEs is in line with the above decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. III raised by the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No. IV 6. Ground No. IV raised

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

pricing adjustment was warranted. The decision of CIT(A) to hold LIBOR + 1% as arm’s length rate of interest in respect of loan for AEs is in line with the above decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. III raised by the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No. IV 6. Ground No. IV raised

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38.What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

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.

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 20 M/s. Teleperformance Global Services Privae Limited (Formerly known as ―Inellenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd.‖) appellant cannot be said to be an ‗eligible assessee‘ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee

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

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.

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the appellant cannot be said to be an ‗eligible assessee‘ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an ‗ineligible assessee‘, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the appellant cannot be said to be an „eligible assessee‟ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an „ineligible assessee‟, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order

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

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

iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page 9 to 18 of the Final Assessment Order) ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance under Section 36(1)(i), Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

35,87,893 14,13,63,999 The ld. DRP directed on the Ld. TPO to account of import of consider alleged finished goods* excessive AMP expenses as non- operating while computing margin for import of finished goods. Further, the ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to examine the 6 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. correctness of margins of; • Sataytej

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

35(2AB), however, the DSIR in its Form 3CL,\nspecifically disallowed \"rent, electricity and maintenance\".\nThe Assessee relied on plethora of decisions in its favour to\ncontend that once facility is approved and other conditions\nare complied with, DSIR cannot quantify expenditure and\nspecifically considering that the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b)\nwas w.e.f.1.7.2016. The Hon'ble Tribunal took