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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 153 of the Act expiring on 31 March 2016, thus, barred by limitation and is hereby quashed. 15. Thus, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and other decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel, we hold that the impugned order dated 26.02.2014 is clearly barred by limitation, because once the assessee is not eligible assessee, therefore no draft assessment

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

58,96,605 33,02,68,094 78,61,64,699 TNMM services 4 Reimbursement of 2,10,44,588 - - expenses 5 Recovery of - 1,40,74,418 - CUP expenses Total 669,50,25,196 213,53,21,071 879,52,27,221 9. Accordingly, AO made a reference u/s 92CA(1) for determination of arm’s length price

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

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

price at which these are transferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit was made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it was the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the Assessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and accordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the distributors

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)

58, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 07/02/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1149/Mum/2025 [Assessment

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)

58, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 07/02/2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1149/Mum/2025 [Assessment

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 under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred by limitation and hence invalid in law.‖ 3.1. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1:0 Re: Eloal Assessment Order barred by limitation: 1:1 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

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

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

Section 92CA(1) of the Act. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 2.1.4 The transfer pricing adjustments are contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2005-06 (DCIT vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited) and therefore are required to be quashed

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

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

58,812/- under the normal computation provision and computed the book profit under 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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

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

58,812/- under the normal computation provision and computed the book profit under 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

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

58,812/- under the normal computation provision and computed the book profit under 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

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, inter-alia, upheld the findings of TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 20. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. HSBC Hong Kong has rendered certain technology and support services including accessing, storing

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 144C(3)(a) of the Act. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, inter-alia, upheld the findings of TPO/AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 20. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. HSBC Hong Kong has rendered certain technology and support services including accessing, storing

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

58,593 Reimbursement of expenses paid ₹ 3,69,73,756 6. The Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that, though, as per Schedule–VI of the annual report income from service was shown at ₹ 410,59,77,730. The assessee has reduced therefrom service tax of ₹ 34,82,10,146, and sub–contractor cost of ₹ 369,40,07,189 and has shown

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

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

58, Mumbai\nDate of Impugned order\n18/11/2024\n18/11/2024\n18/11/2024\n2. Both sides admit that the facts and circumstances for all the years under consideration are identical. Therefore, all appeals are being disposed off by way of a common order. For sake of convenience, we are considering the facts for assessment year 2012-13 as under.\n3\nITA No.532, 533, 534/Mum/2025

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6) of the Act. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also examined the employees’ profile of the assessee company and noted that the average salary of 55 employees of the assessee is ₹8,97,237/-, per employee, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer on the basis