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

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

40a(IA) Rs. 3,17,32,153/- 14. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest income which was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, without filing revised return of income?" 15. "Whether on facts

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing assessment, m) export price fixed by Chiron India made good commercial sense to take advantage of its surplus manufacturing capacity which is similar to airline company or hotels who charge different prices to different customers so as to achieve equilibrium by earning best profits in a given situation; n) therefore, CIT(A) is of view that price charged

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

transfer pricing assessment, m) export price fixed by Chiron India made good commercial sense to take advantage of its surplus manufacturing capacity which is similar to airline company or hotels who charge different prices to different customers so as to achieve equilibrium by earning best profits in a given situation; n) therefore, CIT(A) is of view that price charged

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(2) and Section 80IA(10), need to be amended\nempowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the income\ndeclared by the assessee having regard to the fair market value of\nthe transactions between the related parties. The Assessing Officer may\nthereafter apply any of the generally accepted methods of determination\nof arm's length price, including the methods

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

transfer pricing adjustment made M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited in respect of special purpose loan of USD 110 million. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to address the additional ground raised by the assessee on 16/05/2011 which is as under:- 1. The appellant company prays that it be allowed

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

40A; (has been omitted Fin Act,2017) (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) (any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

transfer pricing matters by the AO/ TPO be deleted. VI. Disallowance of loss on account of error trades amounting to Rs. 21, 24,000/- 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in treating the loss of Rs. 21,24,000 incurred on account of error trades as speculation loss

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

Section 40A(9)" ], "issues": "Transfer pricing adjustments on correspondent banking activities, marketing and support services, and derivatives; deductibility of employee

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

Transfer Pricing, 4 (1) (2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) to examine arm’s-length price of those international transactions. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 4. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) on 31/10/2019 dealing with the international transactions as under: – i. On verification of Form No. 3CEB, the TPO noted that

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly\nallowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustments for correspondent banking, marketing and support services, and derivatives. Domestic issues like employee separation expenses, gratuity fund overfunding, and nosto account maintenance charges were also dealt with.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 37", "Section 35DDA", "Section 10(10C)", "Section 195", "Section 40(a)(i)", "Section 40A

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

40A(9)", "Section 195", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)" ], "issues": "The appeals involved disputes concerning transfer pricing adjustments on various

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

Transfer Pricing Officer has made an upward adjustment to the Arm’s length Price by Rs. 11,91,65,955/- vide order passed u/s 92CA(3) dated 30.01.2013. Accordingly, the AO has added the arm’s length adjustment of Rs.11,91,65,955/- to the total income of the assessee vide order u/s 143(3) dated 26.04.2013 and also disallowed