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)

45(4) of the Act. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court answered the same in the negative by holding that there was no transfer of assets, by holding that as long as there is no change in ownership of the firm and its properties, there is no transfer of ownership on reconstitution of the firm. This is therefore

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)

45(4) of the Act. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court answered the same in the negative by holding that there was no transfer of assets, by holding that as long as there is no change in ownership of the firm and its properties, there is no transfer of ownership on reconstitution of the firm. This is therefore

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 154 of the Act on 17th November 2011. Thus, on the basis of the margin computed of the comparable companies an adjustment of `239,02,52,498, was made to the arm's length price. 3. As regards ITES segment, during the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee furnished a fresh list of 15 comparables under Transactional

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

45. In ground no.2, assessee has challenged transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of information technology enabled services (ITES) segment. 46. Though, in ground no.2 with sub grounds the transfer pricing adjustment with regard to ITES segment has been contested on various issues but at the time of hearing, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee confined his argument

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

4) are satisfied. Further, in case of Mercer Consulting(India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if the financial results of the comparable relating to the financial year followed by the assessee are available and the comparable is otherwise functionally similar, there is no reason to reject it merely because

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

4. The Ld. AO has passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 30-11-2017 and made TP adjustment as suggested by the 6 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 TPO in his order dated 20-10-2017 in respect of sale of finished goods, payment for technical know how, payment for interest

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

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

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

VIDEOCON OIL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

4(3) wherein he has simply quoted the provisions of the Section 92CA which reads as under: "3. I consider it necessary and expedient to refer, all the transactions contained in form No.SCEB, u/s 92CA(1) of the Act, for computation of the Arm's Length Price. Therefore, all the international transactions mentioned in form No. 3CEB are referred

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify whether there was any involvement of the Assessee in the direct sales 21 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. made by the AE in India. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007-08. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. GLOBE OP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 143(3) adding the amount of ` 2,62,84,830. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee and on a perusal of the material on record, accepted the contention of the assessee that two companies selected

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

Sections 4, 5 ,15, 22, 28, 45 and 5b. In our view, the ratio of the above decision has no relevance to the issue in hand in which the TPO has not treated the mere issue of share capital as income of the assessee but treated the transaction as capital finance. In the given case Transfer Pricing

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

4) of the Act, andthe conversion would amount to a 'transfer',exigible to capital gains tax under the provisions of section 45. 6.3. The Ld.DRthough relied on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in case of ACIT vs. Celerity Power LLP (supra),is not of any assistance to the revenue based on the discussions mentioned above

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 48,53,467 10AA of the Act in respect of remaining units 4

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

4. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294 wherein it was held that where one of the ingredients for computation of capital gains is absent, no capital gains could be levied due to failure of the computation mechanism. The precise observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. 15.1. During the relevant previous year, the AEs of the Assessee incurred certain expenses relating to salary and other related costs of the employees who were seconded to the Assessee and who worked under the supervision, management and control of the Assessee. Subsequently the Assessee reimbursed these expenses incurred

NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Unit 501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. Pan:Aaaca 9649L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent It(Tp)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By : Shri Debashish Chand Date Of Hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2016

45,000/-, whereas M/s. Infosys Limited has a turnover of about Rs.25,385.00 crores for the year under consideration. In this context, it was put to the parties in the course of hearing as to whether any turnover filter was applied either by the assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study or by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the course