VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

price at which the same is transferred to the\ndistributors is in the nature of a trade discount given to the distributors, and\nthe same does not qualify as \"commission\" so as to be subjected to the\nprovisions of section 194H of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the\nrelationship between the assessee and the distributors

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

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)

transfer, assign, dispose off, place, charge or create any lien on these shareholdings. 3. They will furnish details in agreed format every year. 4. The bank can inspect the records of the assessee. In view of the above, it can be seen that assessee has merely given undertaking to not divest its shareholdings in the AE. In view

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)

transfer, assign, dispose off, place, charge or create any lien on these shareholdings. 3. They will furnish details in agreed format every year. 4. The bank can inspect the records of the assessee. In view of the above, it can be seen that assessee has merely given undertaking to not divest its shareholdings in the AE. In view

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

80,87,902/- and secondly, secondly, interest on outstanding receivable of Rs.2,97,647/ outstanding receivable of Rs.2,97,647/-. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 15.03.2022 return of income

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80,174/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 11/07/2006. Subsequently the return was selected for scrutiny and the notice under section 143(2) was served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transaction, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing

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

80, following the provisions of Section 144 of the Act." 10. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating expenditure of Rs. 192,88,87,323/- incurred for brand building as revenue expenditure disregarding the fact that the same has long term benefit to the assessee and is enduring

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80-IA(8)", "92BA", "92F" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO, regarding the price of inter-unit electricity transfer, is sustainable, considering the appropriate comparable and market value determination under Section

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

80-IA was to accord incentive to those who had made initial investment and taken entrepreneurial risk. He accordingly submitted that the amendment was brought in by introducing sub-section (12A) to disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired the eligible undertaking much later when the risk had reduced

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

80-IA was to accord incentive to those who had made initial investment and taken entrepreneurial risk. He accordingly submitted that the amendment was brought in by introducing sub-section (12A) to disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired the eligible undertaking much later when the risk had reduced

DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80,172. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Pursuant to the reference made by the AO, the Transfer Pricing

HSBC ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80,172. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Pursuant to the reference made by the AO, the Transfer Pricing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer are directed to\ncompute the eligible deduction under section 80-IA as per the\ndirections above, and carry

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

80,58,593 Reimbursement of expenses paid ₹ 3,69,73,756 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

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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

80-IA of the Act in respect of `Other Income'\n(g) Ground No. 7 to 7.2: General grounds on Transfer\nPricing Adjustment\n(h)\nGround No. 7.3 to 7.8: Transfer Pricing Adjustment of\nINR 22,01,14,350/- pertaining to Advertisement,\nMarketing and Promotion expenditure\n(i)\nGround No. 7.9 to 7.10: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

80-IA of the Act in respect of `Other Income'\n(g) Ground No. 7 to 7.2: General grounds on Transfer\nPricing Adjustment\n(h)\nGround No. 7.3 to 7.8: Transfer Pricing Adjustment of\nINR 22,01,14,350/- pertaining to Advertisement,\nMarketing and Promotion expenditure\n(i)\nGround No. 7.9 to 7.10: Transfer Pricing Adjustment

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

Section ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup Global Market (India) Private Limited; A.Y. 10-11 133(6) of the Act. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer also examined the employees’ profile of the assessee company and noted that the average salary of 55 employees of the assessee is ₹8,97,237/-, per employee, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer on the basis