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 in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

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 in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 3. Re : Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: 3.1 The learned DCIT erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 11,73,198 claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.2 The learned DCIT erred in observing that once the asset is adjusted and removed from

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

69,83,120/ 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of grounds reproduced above. of grounds reproduced above. M/s Essar Shipping Ltd M/s Essar Shipping Ltd 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee

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

section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the amount of Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess charged on income tax during

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

Transfer Pricing Officer to benchmark the same and determine the ALP i.e., the difference of dividend of 8.5% and the LIBOR rate as per above discussion. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee for statistical purpose. It is needless to say that the bench marking may be carried out by the Page

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

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

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 92CA(3) of the Act transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. TPO computed adjustment for Nagada plant at Rs.2

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 92CA(3) of the Act transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and transfer pricing adjustment to manufacturing segment and technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. technical support service. Under manufacturing segment, the Ld. TPO computed adjustment for Nagada plant at Rs.2

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40,16,776/- which was restricted to ₹83,06,69

COLGATE -PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40,16,776/- which was restricted to ₹83,06,69

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40,16,776/- which was restricted to ₹83,06,69

DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, number 75/M/2018 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013 – 14 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

transfer pricing issues of ₹23,48,70,000/-. v. The learned Assessing Officer further made disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rule of ₹25,21,108/-. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IC of the Act amounting to ₹83,40,16,776/- which was restricted to ₹83,06,69

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

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 net revenue

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

Transfer Pricing Officer has summarized the arguments of revenue and decided as under: - 3.2.4 The arguments of the revenue department are summarized as under :-  The assessee has extended loan to its associated enterprise.  Lending or borrowing is not one of the main businesses of the taxpayer.  The assessee has charged low rate of interest on the above loan facility. ITA.NO

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

Section\n92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for\ndetermination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the\nInternational Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated\n03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee\nCommission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why\nGuarantee Commission at the rate

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

69 of the Transfer Pricing Officer order]. 10. The Transfer Pricing Officer observed that in the preceding years, the benchmarking done by the Assessee in respect of COE/IT charge was not accepted, Year after year, and the respective TPO's has benchmarked and recomputed the ALP of the transaction by following the CUP method. Therefore, during the current proceedings, considering

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

price method (CUP) as the most appropriate method to benchmark the aforesaid international transaction; and -While applying CUP as the most appropriate method, in not granting the adjustments sought to be made to the brokerage rates charged to Non AES, on account of differences in the ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 efforts

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

price method (CUP) as the most appropriate method to benchmark the aforesaid international transaction; and -While applying CUP as the most appropriate method, in not granting the adjustments sought to be made to the brokerage rates charged to Non AES, on account of differences in the ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 efforts