RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

36. The intention of the Section 55(2)(ac) can be gauged by the Finance Minister‟s speech while introducing this amendment unambiguously reflected the legislative policy that all appreciation till 31 January 2018 would be excluded from taxation. He illustrated this by stating that if an equity share purchased at ₹100 prior to that date

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

price which is one of the two recognized methods of\nvaluation of the closing stock.\n7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the\npurpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment\nof these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the\ncommercial profit

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation ought

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation ought

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

36,38,25,151/- On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed other additions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act. 3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

2 907,830 453,915 Total 194 75,081,866 387,020 Average sales price per unit 387,020 Similarly, in respect of product 207-4x4-483, the TPO selected the transaction with non-AE where the average price charged is more than price charged from AE ignoring the fact that there are transaction with other non- AEs where

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

2) Whether the re-characterization of transaction and adjustment of interest is permissible for the year under consideration: a) The assessee totally ignored the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in section 92F(ii), as no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have fore gone such huge sum of money without charging interest from AE. Therefore, the receivable representing

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

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

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

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

2(31) of the Act. Thus, it is a case where the TPO proposed variation in the case of a non-existent entity, which is not even understood as a „person‟ under the Act. This also brings out that FEIPL could not be understood as an „eligible assessee‟ in the eyes of law under Section 144C

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

prices that are higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the receipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers the amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received. builder. Such a relationship does not spell out a debtor-creditor relationship nor is the payment made by the appellant

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

price goes up in\norder to earn profits.........\"\nThe learned Judge then considered the implication of Rule 8D of the Rules in the\ncontext of Section 14-A(2) of the Act and clarified that before applying the theory of\napportionment, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction on Suo Moto\ndisallowance only in those cases where, the apportionment was done

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

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)

2. Before us several grounds have been taken on merits as well as additional ground challenging the validity of transfer pricing order and assessment order being barred by limitation. 3. The brief background and the facts qua the legal issue raised that transfer pricing order u/s 92CA (3) and final assessment order are barred by limitation are discussed succinctly herein