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

CADBURY INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenditure. Ground raised is allowed. 24. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in turn relying on the decision of Assessment Year 2006-07. These issues are settled in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, these

CAPGEMINI INDIA P.LTD,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 204,993,848 made. In view of this, ground number 1, 2, 4-5 of the appeal are also treated as allowed. Capgemini India P. Ltd; AY 10-11 024. With respect to ground number 6 that whether the loss incurred by eligible unit u/s 10 A at Chennai wherein loss

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in AY 2008-09 is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarvertual Court No. Iii It(Tp)A No. 3263/Mum/2017 For Ay 2008-09 It(Tp) No. 794/Mum/2018 For Ay 201-011 Tata Consultancy Services Vs Dcit Ltd.,9Th Floor, Nirmal Bldg, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, 29Th Floor, Wtc, Nariman Point. Mumbai – 21 Cufee Parade Pan Aaacr4849R Mumbai- 05. Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computation of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The TPO after considering the material place before him and considering the submissions of the assessee suggested the adjustment on account of provision of Software, technical & consultancy services of Rs. 113,27,000,00/-, Interest chargeable from AE of Rs. 41,04,81,573/-, Corporate guarantee

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956 Act, the fact that the same may not attract income tax will not amount to it being a device to evade tax. 7. Even the argument of the Regional Director that foreign exchange amounting to Rs.248 crores will be drained away if the Scheme is sanctioned, is of no avail

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956 Act, the fact that the same may not attract income tax will not amount to it being a device to evade tax. 7. Even the argument of the Regional Director that foreign exchange amounting to Rs.248 crores will be drained away if the Scheme is sanctioned, is of no avail

FIRST CREDIT ITES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT.DY/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E -ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, by the Assessing Officer (AO) and raises the following grounds, which are mutually exclusive, independent of, and without prejudice to one another. 1. Transfer Pricing addition of INR 2,21,23,649/- on account of services rendered to the Associated Enterprise: 1.1. On the facts

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

CLSA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing study. However, he directed the TPO to compute the margins of the comparable companies after considering the foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature. Thus, based on the DRP’s directions the TPO computed the addition of Rs 1,49,08,248/- 19. The TPO rejected GC Vak Software and Exports Limited as comparable on the ground that

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

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Section 92CA(3) of the Act, proposed upward transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,05,43,246/- consisting of transfer pricing adjustment of INR 54,62,391

FULFORD (INDIA) LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT.(OSD)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (Osd)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 Pan No. Aaacf1795L Appellant Respondent

391 (Mum) holding that CUP method is the most appropriate method for determining arm's length price in the case of generic APIs and armed with the requisite CUP inputs gathered by him under section 133(6), the Transfer

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Though it has been submitted by the assessee that the payment for purchase of software is for acquiring of copyrighted article and not for transfer of any right in the copyright and payment cannot be construed

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

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 approved by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Since there is no consideration for transfer of a capital asset, the capital gains computation mechanism fails and thus, no capital gains tax can be levied on such transfer and the same cannot be termed as „Sale‟. Reliance

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. AS SUCCESSOR OF ROHM AND HAAS (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

price of the international transactions of the assessee to the Ld. TPO for applying the CUP method as most appropriate Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass 30 (India) Private Limited method, the grounds challenging the TNMM method are rendered academic only. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has also not argued these grounds

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