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

3. Further, on the instructions of the assessee he submitted that grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are not to be pressed. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee, all these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Thus, the surviving grounds which need

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

section 92C 8 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 r.w.r.10B, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by adopting any one method thereunder and not by adopting two methods as the most appropriate method. The assessee has also argued for not adopting as most appropriate method, as per which, the price at which finished goods are exported

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

price at which the machinery was distributed by the assessee-firm to its partners as deemed gift and subjected the same to gift-tax. The issue was whether distribution of machinery was a transfer in the nature of sale, for a consideration. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered the expression of "transfer" under section 2(xxiv

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

45. Though, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP against the transfer pricing adjustment, however, learned DRP rejected the objections of the assessee. 46. 47. Though, this company was selected by the assessee in the transfer pricing analysis, however, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected this company on the ground that it fails export revenue filter of 75%. 48. The learned

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 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

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 adjustments 1. Rendering of software development 68,37,05,578 services 2. Intra-group services 10,51,45,309 Sub- total (A) 78,88,50,887 Corporate tax additions 3. Grant of lesser deduction under section

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

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 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

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

transfer of the commodity or scrips. Quite clearly, the short controversy before us is as to whether interest rate swap is liable to be understood as a ‘commodity’ for the purposes of section 43(5) of the Act. To put it differently, in the present case, what is of relevance is to examine whether the transaction in interest rate swap

DCIT-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABDULSATTAR SULEMAN GHASWALA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of learned Assessing officer for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Abdulsattar Suleman Dcit-41(4)(1) Ghaswala Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R Co No. 83/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No. 1658/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 2013-14) Abdulsattar Suleman Ghaswala Dcit-41(4)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilya 142/48 Ghaswala Estate S V Road Jogeshwari(W) Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(East) Vs. Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400102 (Cross Objector/ Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpg9088R

transfer of any capital asset by the assessee to the said firm during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for section 45(3) to apply and therefore, the question of resorting to a device to avoid tax under section 45(3) does not arise. The assessee further contended that the finding of the Assessing Officer that

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

45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 9th June 2022 has raised additional grounds that the impugned transfer pricing order dated 30th January 2013 passed u/s 92CA(3) is barred by limitation and hence bad in law. Further in another petition dated 20th June 2022, 4 I.T.A

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

3) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'].\n2.1.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA\nNo.1149/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2013-2014]:\n\"Ground 1: Erroneous transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the\nCommissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]\n1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred,\nboth

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

3. 7.50% search furnished during TP assessment using lexis database) Average 6.45% 40 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 93. Considering average rate of royalty of 6.45% versus royalty paid by assessee @ 7%, the Transfer Pricing Officer made adjustment of ` 52,95,875. 94. The DRP upheld the action of the Transfer Pricing Officer. 95. Before us, the learned

ITO 16(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. PREM RAMANAND SAGAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price and amount at which transfer has taken place can be charged under section 45(3). In the instant case

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

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