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 and a valid draft assessment order, the Ld. AO cannot assume jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment under Section 144C of the Act and pass the consequential final assessment order. The decisions of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in case of International Air Transport Association (supra) and Dimension Data Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. (supra) forties appellant

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)

41,01,11,399 (B) 8. On the issue of time barring of the assessment order, it has been contended by the Ld. Counsel before us that the ld. TPO 8 M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. has passed an order on 01/11/2019 which is beyond the time limit provided in Section 92CA(3A) of the Act which requires the transfer

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)

41,406/- under Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10

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)

41,406/- under Section 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. 4 Ground No. 7 to 13: Provision of shared services by the Appellant at Chennai unit 5 Ground No: 1-4 to 22: Provision of Technical Services by the Appellant through

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2 Ground No. 2 to 4 Import of finished goods 3 Ground No. 5 to 6 Sale of Lubricants M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. 4 Ground No. 7 to 13: Provision of shared services by the Appellant at Chennai unit 5 Ground No: 1-4 to 22: Provision of Technical Services by the Appellant through

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

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

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

41,659 TNMM consultancy services 2. Availing of Services 1514,04,98,922 TNMM 3. Interest received on 5,65,486 Other method amount of loan outstanding 4. Guarantee fees 30,42,30,780 Other method 4.1. Reference u/s. 92CA(1) was made to ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for computing the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

41. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January 2015 is barred by limitation resulting in no transfer

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

41. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January 2015 is barred by limitation resulting in no transfer

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

41. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the draft assessment order dated 23 March 2015 as per provisions of Section 144C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the transfer pricing order being passed on 30 January 2015 is barred by limitation resulting in no transfer

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer found that 19.54% is the marketing expenditure of the comparable companies, whereas the assessee spend is 29.99%. Accordingly, he made an adjustment of ₹4,41,05,838/- on account of Arm‟s Length Price of the above services by passing an order under Section

EOS POWER INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer found that 19.54% is the marketing expenditure of the comparable companies, whereas the assessee spend is 29.99%. Accordingly, he made an adjustment of ₹4,41,05,838/- on account of Arm‟s Length Price of the above services by passing an order under Section

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by TPO. 7. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, as per the pre–condition of the tender floated by ONGC, multiple companies of the Transocean Group could not have participated in the bid for supply of rig and off–shore drilling work. In this context, the learned Authorised Representative referred to the provisions of section

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

Transfer pricing addition of INR 4,11,67,000/- (viii) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to the extent of INR 1,82,45,413/- [INR 3,94,71,017/- Less INR 2,12,25,604/-] (ix) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act to the extent

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

41. The issue being fairly settled and the intent of legislature in strictly interpreting the provision of section 144C of the Act being repeatedly held so, the act of the Ld. AO in proceeding to pass a draft assessment order on the basis of an order by the Ld. TPO which is barred by limitation and thus