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

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

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(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI 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

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 order u/s 92CA (3) and final assessment order are barred by limitation are discussed succinctly herein after. Assessee Company is engaged in the business of distribution of medical devices. It has filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 30 November 2016 declaring a total income under the normal provisions of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA, JOGESHWARI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-10(2)(3) V. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 142/48, Ghaswala Estate Room No-212, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aalpg9087A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri S.M. Makhija & : Ms. Manisha Ghind Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

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

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed; Claim for additional depreciation 1. The AO erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,17,193 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., 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)

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

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)

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GUPSHUP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

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 assessee

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

3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee.  Section 92CA(4) of the Act states that on the receipt of the order, the AO shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee according to section 92C(4) of the Act. On the perusal of the section

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