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 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

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

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.2,77

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.2,77

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

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 Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77

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 Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77

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 Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77

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 Officer) an order was passed under Section 92CA (3) of the Act, on 30th January, 2015, proposing an adjustment of ₹152,77

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 ()

Section 153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed; Claim for additional depreciation 1. The AO erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 7,17,193 on the written down value of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer, Plant and Machinery, Building consequent to disallowance of revenue expenditure in the assessment orders

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), wherein the loss assessed is Rs. 38,62584 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned loss of Rs. 105 77,29,782 TRANSFER PRICING

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 92F(ii) that no unrelated party in uncontrolled circumstances would have passed on such huge contract amount exceeding Rs.622.57 Crores without charging or retaining any commission." 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that, the name lending and front end entity activities done

M/S. NATUREX INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI DCIT-CIR 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

transfer price of the Appellant in respect of the payment of management service fee of INR 3, 01, 42,197/- to Associated Enterprises ('AEs'), holding that this international transaction does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in specific in doing so grossly erred in: 2.1 Disregarding the evidence placed on record by labelling them

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer himself has accepted there imbursement of the administrative expenses /management fee paid to the AEs to be at arm's length. Thus, considering the pas event and the revenue sharing model consistently followed by theassessee as well as the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009–10, as referred

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

transfer pricing Officer as per letter dated 10 January 2014 and before the learned CIT – A as per letter dated ninth ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 may 2017 and therefore assessee did not cherry picked the comparable. He submitted that since IDC India is a comparable its inclusion could not be objected