PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

47,177/- as per order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Circle 11(9), Mumbai, (the learned Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section

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 ()

47(xiiib), the conversion of the company into a LLP would involve any 'capital gain', 23 ITA NO 457/Mum/2025 AY: 2018-19 ISC Specialty Chemicals LLP the charging provision in Sec. 45 has to be looked into. Admittedly, the conversion of the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile company to the assessee LLP in the case before us took place

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

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 being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 40 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 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

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 92B of the Act whereas it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) was justified in dealing with the Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.4,47

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 92B of the Act whereas it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) was justified in dealing with the Transfer Pricing Addition of INR.4,47

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

47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act (f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of `Other Income' (g) Ground

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

Transfer Pricing Officer proceeded to benchmark the same using other method. He extracted the points from Board Resolution the similarities in the regular Preference shares and NCCRPS issued by the assessee, for the sake of clarity, it is reproduced below: - 1. The priority with respect to The said preference shares shall rank for payment of dividend or repayment of dividend

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 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

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)

47,44,45,300/- and book profit of Rs. 36,31,30,030/- under provision of section 115JB of the Act. Further, since tax payable under the normal provisions of the Act was higher than tax payable under provisions of section 115JB of the Act, the assessee paid tax as per normal provisions of the Act. 4. The assessee

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 being passed at all and any variations arising there from, the entailing consequence in instant case is that the 20 M/s. Teleperformance Global Services Privae Limited (Formerly known as ―Inellenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd.‖) appellant cannot be said to be an ‗eligible assessee‘ under section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35. Accordingly, once the assessee

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

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.

47,29,983/- under normal provisions of the Act and computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act was not made in this final assessment order. Against this final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.2. The ld. AR before us stated that the transfer pricing order passed by the ld. TPO u/s.92CA(3) on 01/11/2019

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

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

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 ()

transfer pricing matters made by the learned AO/TPO and upheld by the Hon'ble DRP in respect of data processing and software services be deleted. Ground 2 - Disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses amounting to Rs. 29,47,184 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO while giving effect to the directions

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

Section 115JB of the Act at ₹221,99,47,090/-. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. As ITA No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 assessee has entered into several international transactions, the learned Assessing Officer referred them to the learned Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing

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

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

Section 115JB of the Act at ₹221,99,47,090/-. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. As ITA No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 assessee has entered into several international transactions, the learned Assessing Officer referred them to the learned Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing