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

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

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

54,021 related to Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) under section 37(1) of the Act. 3.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing the additional claim made during the course of assessment proceedings for ESOP expenses (being difference between market price

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

transfer pricing adjustment. In addition the Assessing Officer also proposed other additions/disallowances as per the provisions of the Act. 3.2. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed

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 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

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 115JB of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 23/12/2024, provided partial relief in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the Transfer Pricing Assessment Year 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Addition of INR.10,45,07,474/- made

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

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

DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING SERVICES (INDIA) PLT, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing as enshrined in Section 92F(ii) that no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have passed on such huge contract amount exceeding Rs.622.57 Crores without charging or retaining any commission." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the name lending

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

54,89,235 /- is made to the international transaction of the assessee.” 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred objection before Ld. DRP and filed detailed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee Ld. DRP rejected the submission of the assessee and sustained the proposed additions made by the Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer. The observation of the Ld. DRP is reproduced

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the\nCommissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]\n1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred,\nboth in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs.\n76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission\nfrom Associated Enterprises ('AEs) in relation

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price is not reliable or correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and provisions of section 92C(3)(a) and 92C(3)(c) are invoked to provisions of section 92C(3)(a) and 92C(3)(c) are invoked to provisions

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

transfer of residential house owned by the assessee. The purpose of the section is to grant exemption in case the assessee acquires a new residential house by investing the capital gain as an owner. It is because of this reason, the words used in section 54 are "purchase" or "construction" of a new residential house. The requirement of section

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution of the price of such international transaction with the ALP. 54. Under Sections 92B to 92F, the pre-requisite

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92F sub-clause (ii) defines the arm’s length price, which means the price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between the persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions. Thus, the second option for determining the market value is the mechanism of transfer pricing provision for determining the arm’s length price.” 54

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the\nCommissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]\n1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred,\nboth in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs.\n76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission\nfrom Associated Enterprises ('AEs) in relation

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 80IA(8). An observation was also made in para\n56 to note the degree of similarity between the transaction of supply of\nelectricity by State Electricity Boards to the assessee and the supply of\nelectricity by the eligible units of the assessee. The distinguishing\nfeature of distribution companies who enjoy merely monopoly status\nwas taken note of and thus

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹105,54,66,739/-. The ld AO selected it for scrutiny. 05. Assessee has entered into international transactions and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer referred the matter to the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing