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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144C(15)(b)(i) since, there would be no variation to the returned income in consequence of Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act; b) No draft Assessment Order was required to be passed in the case of Appellant; c) Accordingly, the Final Assessment Order dated 26 February 2014 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C

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

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act gathered information ct gathered information from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged from various banks with respect to guarantee commission charged by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under: by them. A list of information gathered is reproduced as under

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

40(a)(i), on account of non-deduction of tax u/s 195 of the Act?" 6. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not treating the expenses incurred on import of Software packages amounting to Rs. 48,67,99,137/-'royalty' within the meaning of section

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to benchmark the same and determine the ALP i.e., the difference of dividend of 8.5% and the LIBOR rate as per above discussion. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee for statistical purpose. It is needless to say that the bench marking may be carried out by the Page

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 under section 92CA(3) of the Act, there remains no variation arising as a consequence thereto and the case of the assessee, being an Indian company, falls outside the definition of „eligible assessee‟ as defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO cannot be said to acquire a „legal or a valid

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

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

40(a)(ii)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia), and transfer pricing adjustments for international transactions." } }

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(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

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 under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred by limitation and hence invalid in law.‖ 3.1. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1:0 Re: Eloal Assessment Order barred by limitation: 1:1 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Addition of INR 12,56,43,551/-, (b) Disallowance of INR 3,36,450/- under Section 14A of the Act, (c) Disallowance of INR.98,30,093/- under Section 40

DCIT -5(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

transfer pricing 44. adjustment of INR 13,40,33,405/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2021, passed under Section

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

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40