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 was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense amounting to ₹2,75,66,373/-. The Associated Enterprises incurred certain expenses on behalf of assessee related to the hotel, Visa and other cost. These were reimbursed by the assessee to the Associated Enterprises on cost to cost basis. similarly; there

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(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 was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense amounting to ₹2,75,66,373/-. The Associated Enterprises incurred certain expenses on behalf of assessee related to the hotel, Visa and other cost. These were reimbursed by the assessee to the Associated Enterprises on cost to cost basis. similarly; there

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

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 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 Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

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 Transaction with its AE. Vide Order Sheet noting, dated 03/10/2016, the TPO raised queries regarding Guarantee Commission and the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why Guarantee Commission at the rate

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

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

section 44BB of the Act. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, once the DRP in the case of A.E. had held that the A.E id engaged in actual drilling operation and the assessee is a mere intermediary, which decision of the DRP has been accepted by the Department, a contrary view cannot be taken in assessee’s case in respect

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

75,628 be restored.\n4. Ground 4: \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in Section

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 ()

75,726/ JSW Energy Ltd ITA Nos. 3714 & 3713/MUM/2024 length price in relation to provision of interest on loans on loans extended length price in relation to to its associated enterprises. d enterprises. 7.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute as noted by the AO as noted

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) – 2 (1), Mumbai (the learned TPO). He passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act wherein he proposed five adjustment to the international transaction. 1. The transactions were coming from assessment year 2009 – 10 wherein Assessee entered In to an agreement dated 22 July 2008 and acquired two ships on bare boat charter cum Demise basis

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

section 92CA(3). He proposed\nan aggregate transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.\n536,75,63,935/- across various streams of services

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

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

Pricing Officer were not on the basis of any detailed search process.\nAt least, no such analysis is either forthcoming from the order of the Transfer\nPricing Officer or could be brought to our notice by learned Departmental\nRepresentative. On the contrary, on a thorough and careful reading of the\nimpugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals

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

75,685/- whereas total upward\nadjustment made is at Rs.83,66,17,206/-. It is also noted that while\nmaking an upward transfer pricing adjustment in respect of sale of\nsteam to give effect to the directions of ld. DRP, cost of steam has been\ntaken as nil, so as to arrive at TP adjustment of Rs.62

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), 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

75,628 be restored.\n4. Ground 4: \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is\ncorrect in ignoring the basic tenet of transfer pricing as enshrined in Section