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

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus\nentire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the\nAct are not applicable to the Appellant,\nFinal assessment order passed is time barred - The ground was\nrequested to be kept as academic.\n1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the\nfinal assessment

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

section 10A / 10AA in respect of IPSA income following the direction of the Tribunal and DRP as referred to above. This ground is allowed. 47. Grounds no.24, 25, 26 and 27 are not pressed, hence, dismissed. 48. In view of our decision in ground no.23, the additional grounds being grounds no.28 and 29, have become infructuous, hence, dismissed

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

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel–III (DRP), Mumbai. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

section 92B of the Act and, therefore, it was required to be benchmarked as per Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. The Transfer Pricing Officer took into consideration the information received from banks and determined a rate of 3% as an arm’s length rate to estimate the income by way of guarantee commission/fee. On this basis, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked

SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

63,860 4. In the course of transfer pricing proceedings, as observed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, information was received from the Assessing Officer to the effect that the assessee has entered into a contract with PWD(CWG),Delhi on behalf of its A.E. Turbomach SA, Switzerland, for supply of gas turbines and their installation, commissioning, etc. The TPO observed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer without proper FAR analysis, without applying any most appropriate method and without considering any comparable is not justified. In support of his submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Lever India Exports Ltd ITA No 1306 of 2014, order dated 23.01.2017 (Bom); ii) CIT V Merck

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) holding that the order passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai (“the Ld. TPO”) u/s 92CA 93) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the Ld. TPO was directed to make a fresh order u/s 92CA

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) holding that the order passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai (“the Ld. TPO”) u/s 92CA 93) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the Ld. TPO was directed to make a fresh order u/s 92CA

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) holding that the order passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai (“the Ld. TPO”) u/s 92CA 93) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the Ld. TPO was directed to make a fresh order u/s 92CA

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) holding that the order passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai (“the Ld. TPO”) u/s 92CA 93) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the Ld. TPO was directed to make a fresh order u/s 92CA

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

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

63. Brief facts are, apart from the sales of finished goods to the Assessee who acts as a distributor in India, the AEs have also effected direct sales to third party customers in India. In the course of the transfer pricing proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer called upon the Assessee to furnish the details of direct sales made

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 92C. The fourth step would be to compare the price of the transaction that is 21 Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. shown to exist with the ALP and make the transfer pricing adjustment by substituting the ALP for the contract price. 63

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

63, Lady Ratan Tata Medical and Research Centre M K Road, Cooperage, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAECS8588A] Appearances by: Prakash Shah and Jas Sanghvi for the assessee N K Chand for the Assessing Officer Date of concluding the hearing : January 7, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : March 31st, 2016 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

63, Lady Ratan Tata Medical and Research Centre M K Road, Cooperage, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAECS8588A] Appearances by: Prakash Shah and Jas Sanghvi for the assessee N K Chand for the Assessing Officer Date of concluding the hearing : January 7, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : March 31st, 2016 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar

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 Adjustment 63,87,42,448 Disallowance of 2,92,19,122 depreciation of Goodwill Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 16,65,932 Disallowance due to non 64,45,907 deduction of TDS of foreign Parties Delayed payment of ES1C 1,74,35,513 & PF 228,64,99,895 Less Deduction Deduction

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer, the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own business made