FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

48 to 51 and 87 to\n91 of the Supplementary Paperbook\n1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned\nTransfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO')\nunder the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred\non facts and in law in making an addition

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

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

48. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, this company is engaged in providing ITeS which is evident from the annual report of the company. Thus, it is functionally similar to the assessee. Only because the export earning of the assessee company is 74.45% which is just below the export earning filter of 75% fixed by the Transfer 28 J.P. Morgan Advisors

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

transfer pricing provisions and the same therefore ought to be deleted. Interest under section 234B 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs.3,48

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

48 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. paid for the property 'in a comparable uncontrolled transaction' is identified. Such price in a comparable uncontrolled transaction is adjusted on account of differences, if any. The consequential price is taken as benchmark for considering the assessee's international transactions with its AEs. The second method is 'resale price method'. The procedure for determining

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

Transfer Pricing Officer) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act being adjustment to the Arm's Length Price of the international transactions which has been upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned Dispute Resolution Panel) as per direction passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 31st December, 2013 . Further

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

Transfer Pricing Officer accepts that some services have been rendered, however, he has made a general observation that such services do not have any value and has proceeded to determine the arm's length price on a purely on ad–hoc basis. Whereas, the reading of the AAR ruling, referred to above, clearly demonstrate that highly specialized services, in fact

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 247(7.1) of the ITA provides that the transfer pricing rules will not apply to guarantees provided by Canadian parent corporations in respect of certain financial commitments of their Canadian controlled foreign I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 25 of 56 affiliates to support the active business operations of those affiliates". As to what could

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 29/01/2015, wherein he worked out an adjustment of Rs.36,49,98,330/- to the stated value of international transactions as under:- (i) Provision for software development services – Rs.33,30,47,046/- (ii)Recovery of expenses (Service Charges) - Rs. 3,19,51,284/- Total : Rs. 36,48

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 (TP) adjustment in relation to provision of software development services and intra group services. Beside this, assessee has also raised various corporate grounds, which are as under:- Sr. Particulars Amount in No. Rs. 1 Ground No. 3- Grant of lesser 48,53,467/- deduction under section

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

prices that are higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the receipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers the amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received. builder. Such a relationship does not spell out a debtor-creditor relationship nor is the payment made by the appellant