FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Transfer Pricing Officer certainly cannot determine the arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis. Our reasoning in paragraph 11 to 15 will equally apply to this issue also. Accordingly, we delete the adjustment made to the arm's length price of payment made towards availing information system services from AE. This ground is allowed.” “Facts relating

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Transfer Pricing Officer, we do not intend to deal with the acceptability or otherwise of the rest of the comparables disputed before us under ITES segment and leave the issue relating to comparability of these comparables open for adjudication if they arise in any other assessment year in future. 84. Ground no.7, of this appeal is identical to ground no.6

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other: General ground 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in partially confirming the action of TPO/AO in making transfer pricing adjustment on account of alleged interest on loan

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 15/02/2012. 2 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. Addition on account of Arm's Length Price by TPO Rs. 24,91,59,200/- (i) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding rejection

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 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 45 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. defined under section 144C(15)(b) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO cannot

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

1,57,46,155, was treated as the transfer pricing adjustment. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. Though, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP mainly with regard to selection/rejection of comparables, however, learned DRP did not find merit in the objections

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck

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

41,85,78,484 reduced by assessee Thus, Bank has suo moto reduced its claim under section 36(1)(viia) by 41.85 crores on rural advances in the revised working submitted vide letter dated November 20, 2018. 5.5 Of the 36 branches mentioned in the show cause notice, 34 branches have been removed from the list of rural branches

SIRO CLINPHARM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 (Fall 1994), pp. 103- 165 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20771688), has stated that a guarantee is not a service. The following observations, at pages 114, are important: The position that guarantees are services has been discredited by the courts with good reason38. Guarantee fees do not represent payments for services any more than payments with respect to other financial instruments constitute

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 (Fall 1994), pp. 103- 165 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20771688), has stated that a guarantee is not a service. The following observations, at pages 114, are important: The position that guarantees are services has been discredited by the courts with good reason38. Guarantee fees do not represent payments for services any more than payments with respect to other financial instruments constitute

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v/s CIT, 381 ITR 117; 2. Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v/s ACIT 381 ITR 227 3. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, 49/473 (Trib.) 10. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, even if the transaction value is zero still arm's length price has to be computed since the assessee

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer, the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own business made

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

41 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. 66. Further, the Assessee submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred in making a separate transfer pricing adjustment on account of excessive purchase price charged to the Assessee by the AEs, without appreciating that such differences are related to the trading segment and already benchmarked by the Assessee under TNMM where

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

41,750”. 4. When the aforesaid transaction came up for scrutiny before the Transfer Pricing Officer, as a result of the reference under section 92CA(1

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

1)(e). If due to t assessee to comply to the requirements of Rule 10(1)(e). If due to t assessee to comply to the requirements of Rule 10(1)(e). If due to the reasonable cause, the assessee could not furnish the relevant reasonable cause, the assessee could not furnish the relevant reasonable cause, the assessee could

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

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)

Transfer pricing 1,31,76,48,381 1,26,51,38,000 adjustment Total (A) CT adjustment 1. Disallowance of 48,57,29,824 41,00,49,931 Ld.DRP relied on its convention expenses earlier year directions and held that the convention expenses incurred are in violation of MCI regulations. AO reduced convention expenses by 8.92% while passing the final

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

price whichever is lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy. As profits for income-tax purposes are to be computed in conformity with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting, unless of course, such principles have been superseded or modified by legislative enactments unrealised profits in the shape of appreciated value