SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment relating to intra-group services made by the Appellant to its AEs for fresh determination to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO and direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to decide the issue afresh as per the directions given by the Tribunal in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 reproduced in paragraph 4.4 above. In terms of the aforesaid

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

391 UPS WWF 6. The Ld.TPO in the transfer pricing study report filed by the assessee noted that, assessee aggregated all the transactions except remittance of insurance premium, recovery of expenses/duties and taxes and payment of withholding taxes on behalf of its AE. It was noted that assessee used transaction net margin method (hereinafter referred to as TNMM

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act both under normal provisions of the Act\nas well as under the computation of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. We find\nthat the Id. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by observing as under:-\n\"This is a matter arising for the first time in the case of assessee

LINTAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer pricing officer to determine the arm‟s length price of the intragroup services based on the documents already produced by the assessee. The learned TPO/AO is directed to examine the same for determination of the arm‟s-length price. Accordingly, ground number 4 – 10 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction.” 13. For the year

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailedwards Lifesciences (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor Commerz – Ii, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Goregaon (East), Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aaacb4203F V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah Ms. Riddhi Maru Ms. Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

391 7. Pursuant the reference made by the Technical Unit under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

transfer pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

transfer pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

transfer price of power supplied byCPP was to\nbe bench marked at annual average of landed cost at whichpower was being purchased by\nmanufacturing units from State ElectricityBoard. The revenue carried the matter on appeal\nbefore this court and theappeal filed by the revenue was dismissed and the said decision is\nreportedin (2025) 172 taxman.com 391 (Kolkata). In the said

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

pricing adjustment vis-à-vis imputing interest on delayed realisation of sale proceeds from its AEs. The Appellant charged interest at the rate of 6% on the realisation of sale proceeds from its AEs for the entire credit period extended to the AEs of 150/180 days. The TPO held that interest chargeable by the Appellant on the outstanding balances should

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

section 270A of the Act be quashed.” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is private limited company and is engaged in the business of warehousing, transportation service, express delivery and other related business. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 12/02/2021, declaring loss of Rs.90,99,92,346/-. The case

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

391\nof the then Companies Act, 1956. The said scheme was approved\nby the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment and order dated\n07/11/2008 and this resulted in cancellation of interalia certain\nshares of TTLS as specified in the scheme. The scheme of\narrangement and restructuring has been placed before us during\nthe course of the hearing. The relevant

NTT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), with prior approval of the PCIT. The TPO, DC/ACIT, TP 3(1)(1), Mumbai, made an adjustment to the value of the international transaction vide his order passed u/s 92CA (3) of the Act dated 30.07.2021. 5. The Ld. TPO has proposed the ALP adjustment of Rs. 99,09,31,854/- in respect of management services

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shir M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethyssenkrupp Industries Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(2) India Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 154-C, Mittal Towers, Room No. 609, 15Th Floor, 210, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1947K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Pratik Podar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Samuel Pitta.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 27th November, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Thyssenkrupp Industries Ind Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following re-framed questions of law for our consideration

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court. The core issue for determination is whether such transfer falls within the ambit of “slump sale” as defined in section 2(42C) of the Act, and consequently whether section 50B applies. For the relevant assessment year, the definition of slump sale was confined

SABRE TRAVEL NETWORK (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds of a| herein above and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of this appeal as per law.” 2. The assessee is the subsidiary of Abacus International

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EUROSTAR DIAMONDS INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eurostar Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., 710-711, Raheja Chambers Room No. 607, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacce1920A (Appellant) (Respondent)

391,958,131 TNMM 3 Sale of rough diamond 118,572,194 TNMM 4 Sale of polished diamond 169,244,715 TNMM 5 Sales of Jewellery 933,645 TNMM Total 686,299,360 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer asked the assessee to furnish separate profit level indicator (PLI) in AE and Non-AE segment

THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX ENERGY SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

391 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that the as long as one can come to the conclusion, under any method of benchmarking, that the price paid for controlled transactions is the same as it would have been under similar circumstances for an uncontrolled transaction, the price so paid can be said to be at arm's length. Further

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

391 to 394 of the\nCompanies Act, 1956, sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court. The core issue for\ndetermination is whether such transfer falls within the ambit of “slump sale” as\ndefined in section 2(42C) of the Act, and consequently whether section 50B applies.\nFor the relevant assessment year, the definition of slump sale was confined