FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing order is invalid and thus\nentire assessment is bad in law as provisions of section 144C(1) of the\nAct are not applicable to the Appellant,\nFinal assessment order passed is time barred - The ground was\nrequested to be kept as academic.\n1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO erred in not passing the\nfinal assessment

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

91%, is earned from software development and consulting services. Therefore, the company being functionally similar to the assessee is a comparable. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, the company also does not fail the diminishing revenue filter applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer as the company has diminishing revenue only in the current year. He submitted, unless a company has diminishing

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Pricing Study. As per the Revenue, since the said concern has been adopted by the assessee as a comparable, it is impermissible for the assessee to raise a plea asking for its exclusion in the process of determination of average margins under the TNM method. In our considered opinion, the proposition being canvassed by the Revenue is not absolute

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

91,59,200/- made by the Assessing Officer, based on the determination of arm's length price by the Transfer Pricing Officer, with respect to the international transaction of sale of TV Programmes and films to associated enterprise. The relevant facts in this regard are as follows. The appellant had undertaken certain international transactions within the meaning of section

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

91,02,906/-. He applied Arm's Length Price margin of 42.62% and made an adjustment of ₹2,48,07,132/-. Publics Communication Ltd,:A.Y.09-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 ITA No.1994/M/2014, 7523/M/2016, 462/M/2018, 588/M/2017, CO 180/M/2019 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense

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

91,02,906/-. He applied Arm's Length Price margin of 42.62% and made an adjustment of ₹2,48,07,132/-. Publics Communication Ltd,:A.Y.09-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 ITA No.1994/M/2014, 7523/M/2016, 462/M/2018, 588/M/2017, CO 180/M/2019 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense

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

91,02,906/-. He applied Arm's Length Price margin of 42.62% and made an adjustment of ₹2,48,07,132/-. Publics Communication Ltd,:A.Y.09-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 ITA No.1994/M/2014, 7523/M/2016, 462/M/2018, 588/M/2017, CO 180/M/2019 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer was also found that there is also an international transaction of reimbursement and recovery of expense

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 37(1) of the Act at ` 4,11,60,573. 82. During the course of hearing, both the learned A.R. appearing for the parties conceded that related facts and circumstances of the issue raised by either party is mutatis mutandis and materially identical to the issue decided by us vide ground no.20, raised by the assessee in its appeal

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Transfer Pricing Officer to delete the addition on account of excessive purchase price as it is already benchmarked once under TNMM/RPM, as under 69. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals), inadvertently dismissed the ground, whereas it was to be allowed following DRP direction. Hence, the based on the above order, adjustment on account of excessive purchase price amounting

VFS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10, pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)–II, Mumbai. 2. Ground no.1, being general in nature, there is no need to adjudicate the same. 3. At the outset, learned Authorised Representative submitted, he did not wish to press grounds

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144C(15)(b)(i) since, there would be no variation to the returned income in consequence of Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act; b) No draft Assessment Order was required to be passed in the case of Appellant; c) Accordingly, the Final Assessment Order dated 26 February 2014 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljohnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Space, Off Jvlr Opp. Majas Bus Depot ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai 400 060 Pan – Aaacj0866E V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Ltu–1, Mumbai Assesseeby : Shri Rajan R. Vora A/W Shri Pranay Gandhi & Shri Harshvardhan Aggarwal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar

section 92CA of the Act to Johnson And Johnson Pvt. Ltd. the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction. In course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer after verifying the audit report and other materials on record found that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has entered into

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

91 of the Act, the assessee would be eligible to avail tax credit. Thus, on a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, it becomes clear that where the respective tax treaty provides for benefit for foreign tax paid even in respect of income on which the assessee has not paid tax in India

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing expenses. According to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer, the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for its own business made

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

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

section 144C(15)(b)(i) since, there would be no variation to the returned income in consequence of Order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act; b) No draft Assessment Order was required to be passed in the case of Appellant; 7 I.T.A. No. 2877/Mum/2014 Strides Shasun Limited c) Accordingly, the Final Assessment Order dated 26 February 2014 passed

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JABIL CIRCUIT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

91,047. The adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added in the assessment order. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority. 5. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record held that the Transfer Pricing Officer had neither pointed out any discrepancy

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 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made