ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Transfer pricing officer („TPO‟), which not in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the proceedings initiated by the learned TPO under Section 92CA of the Act on the basis of the said reference by the AO be held as void ab initio and that the order passed by the learned

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

transfer of goods and services is in consonance with the price available in the open market then the profits of the eligible business shown as per this price is eligible for deduction and in that case the second option may not be necessary. 13.9. It is noted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tata Chemicals

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT2(3) (1) - , MUMBAI

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

transfer pricing provision for determining the arm‟s length price. 16 M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 14. The entire case of the department is that, since it is SDT in term of Section 80I

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing provisions is bad in law. The assessee is also stated that AO referred the matter to TPO in respect of SDT without demonstrating that business affairs of the assessee with the closely connected entity has been so arranged having risen to more than the ordinary profit of the assessee. The assessee by refereeing sub-section (10) of section

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SYNGENTA INDIA LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

section 80IB, the profit and loss for 4 units for the year as well as profits eligible for deduction as per the assessee and as per the revenue is as under: Particular Multipurpose Thiamethoxam Topik Profenofos Total Unit Unit Unit Profit/loss for the year

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

transfer pricing provision brought under the Act to cover SDT for determining its ALP, which undisputedly in the present case of the assessee, has been held to be at ALP by the ld. TPO vide order passed u/s.92CA(3) already extracted above. 9.1. At this juncture, it is extremely important to understand the nuances of power business and its regulatory

HINDUSTHAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly\nallowed

80I of the Act and restored\nthe issue to the file of AO with the instruction to follow the directions given\nin AY 2006-07 with regard to allocation of common expenses incurred at\nthe Head Office. It is also pertinent to note that the Co-ordinate Bench\nhas also accepted the plea of the assessee that certain “common income

DCIT 1 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly\nallowed

80I of the Act and restored\nthe issue to the file of AO with the instruction to follow the directions given\nin AY 2006-07 with regard to allocation of common expenses incurred at\nthe Head Office. It is also pertinent to note that the Co-ordinate Bench\nhas also accepted the plea of the assessee that certain “common income

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

transferable and royalty bearing license. As per agreement, the said license includes the rights to multiply the lines and varieties and produce the basic seed as per the assessee’s requirement. In the TP Study report, the assessee has highlighted the benefits from such a technical know- how agreement and how it has helped the assessee to develop the capability

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

transferable and royalty bearing license. As per agreement, the said license includes the rights to multiply the lines and varieties and produce the basic seed as per the assessee’s requirement. In the TP Study report, the assessee has highlighted the benefits from such a technical know- how agreement and how it has helped the assessee to develop the capability

ACIT CC-8, MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

transfer of the commodity or scripts. Provided that for the purposes of this clause - (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of the manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of the contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured