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

price at the time of grant of options) of Rs. 2.48.85,009 under section 37(1) of the Act 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld AO and Hon'ble DRP erred

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 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 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with its AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO ask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the Assessee to its AE’s during the relevant previous

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 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with its AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO ask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the Assessee to its AE’s during the relevant previous

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

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 order is invalid and thus entire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant, Final assessment order passed is time barred 1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section

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

ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

transfer pricing provisions do not apply. This was held by the coordinate benches in assessee‟s own case for earlier years and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A who followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of learned

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

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to\nthe Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's\nLength Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with\nits AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO\nask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the\nAssessee to its AE's during the relevant previous

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 ()

64,13,241/ ALP interest has been worked out to be Rs.1,64,13,241/ ALP interest has been worked out to be Rs.1,64,13,241/-. We are of the c are of the considered opinion that this spread over as onsidered opinion that this spread over as computed by the assessee was undisputed, quite fair and computed

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

64,465 as determined by the Appellant, thereby computing a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,49,14,465. While proposing the adjustment, the Ld. AO/ TPO erred in:. (a) Rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant wherein the Appellant has applied 'Other Method' as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the international transaction of payment for cost

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 144C. Ground no.4 raised by the assessee is\ndismissed.\n\n9. Through ground no.3, assessee contested that ld. Assessing\nOfficer /TPO has failed to follow the directions given by the ld. DRP and\nthus the final assessment order so passed is not in conformity with the\nsaid directions, making the impugned assessment order invalid and bad\nin law. Directions

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

Transfer pricing (TP") adjustment in respect of purchase of equity shares of Sutures India Private Limited (SIPL) and Quality Needles Private Limited ("QNPL') On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO of determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

sections 45, 50A, 50C and 50D etc., substituting the full value of consideration and to sec. 49 substituting cost of acquisition in the computation of income under the head `Capital gains’. Since the transfer pricing provisions are based on the ALP concept, the fair market value is alien to the CUP method, which, in turn, seeks to compare the transacted

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

pricing adjustment of INR 64,35,00,000/-. 3.2. On 31/03/2016, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act proposing the aforesaid transfer

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

Section 92CA(1) of the Act to\nthe Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm's\nLength Price (ALP) in relation to the International Transactions with\nits AE. The TPO vide Order Sheet noting dated 03/12/2014 the TPO\nask the Assessee about the details of guarantees provided by the\nAssessee to its AE's during the relevant previous