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 has classified the income received under IPSA agreement to be of the nature of ITES and has also benchmarked it as such, the Assessing Officer cannot take a contrary view by stating that it is not in the nature of ITES only for disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. The Department

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 (*TP') adjustment in relation to export of finished goods 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/TPO in determining the Arms' Length Price ('ALP') of the international transaction of export of finished goods at Rs. 10,35,77,048 instead

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

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 Authorised Representative submitted, this company is engaged in providing ITeS which is evident from the annual report of the company. Thus

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 Pricing adjustment warranted. (iii) The Ld. CIT (A)/TPO/AO ought to have accepted the facts that issuance of corporate guarantees by assessee to lender bank for its AE, does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses 4 or assets of assessee hence outside the ambit of expression 'international transaction

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

46 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. yearend exchange rate instead of the actual exchange rate at which the income was booked. 107. The DRP confirmed the Transfer Pricing Officer‟s action. 108. Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer failed to appreciate that the arm's length principle is based on comparison

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 92 of the Act, he submitted, it empowers the Assessing Officer to determine the arm's length price of benefit, service or facilities. He submitted, there is no restriction imposed on the Transfer Pricing Officer to only determine the arm's length price or cost of expenditure allocated. He submitted, the cost or expenditure allocated or apportioned

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 delete the addition on account of excessive purchase price as it is already benchmarked once under TNMM/RPM, as under 69. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals), inadvertently dismissed the ground, whereas it was to be allowed following DRP direction. Hence, the based on the above order, adjustment on account of excessive purchase price amounting

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

VFS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10, pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)–II, Mumbai. 2. Ground no.1, being general in nature, there is no need to adjudicate the same. 3. At the outset, learned Authorised Representative submitted, he did not wish to press grounds

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing order being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the appellant cannot be said to be an „eligible assessee‟ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35.Accordingly, once the assessee becomes an „ineligible assessee‟, the very foundation for proceeding to pass the draft assessment order does

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

section 92CA of the Act to Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction. In course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer after verifying the audit report and other materials on record found that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has entered into

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 92B which states that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include…….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long -term or short -term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIA MEDTRONIC P. LTD, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Transfer Pricing Officer to verify whether there was any involvement of the assessee in the direct sales made by the AE in India. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment years 2003–04 and 2004–05. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal cited supra, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer

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 and a valid draft assessment order, the Ld. AO cannot assume 46 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment under Section

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)

pricing addition of INR.11,70,46,972/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 22/02/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing, inter-alia, the above Transfer

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)

pricing addition of INR.11,70,46,972/-. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 22/02/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) proposing, inter-alia, the above Transfer

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 28. Before we proceed further, let us understand the Lease transaction and its recording in the books as per Accounting Standard, the leases are classified as Finance Lease and Operating Lease. As per the accounting standards a lease is classified as Finance Lease if the lessor transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental