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

Transfer pricing provisions as contained under Sections 92 to 92F of the Act, read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules envisage determination of arm's length price in case of a "transaction actually undertaken by the assessee with associated enterprises. In this regard, we submit as under. Section 92(1

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

92,92C and section 92D of the I.T. Act and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

INDIA MEDTRONIC P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

section 144C(13) of the Act, making the following adjustments/ additions/ disallowances:- Particulars Amount of Amount of Remarks adjustment as adjustment per draft AO as Order [in INR) per final AO order (in INR) 1. Adjustment on 1,08,99,66,623 1,08,99,66,6 The ld. DRP relied on account of alleged 23 its earlier year Advertising

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

section 92(1) of the Act would, primarily, not be applicable at all, till the guarantee is invoked, (iv) Without prejudice to above, the AO/TPO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the Appellant that in no case the amount of guarantee fee commission shall exceed 0.236% as per the Guarantee Benchmarking report

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

section 92(1) of the Act would, primarily, not be applicable at all, till the guarantee is invoked, (iv) Without prejudice to above, the AO/TPO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the Appellant that in no case the amount of guarantee fee commission shall exceed 0.236% as per the Guarantee Benchmarking report

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

92,620 and book loss of Rs.8,106,24,94,032. The return 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. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

92,620 and book loss of Rs.8,106,24,94,032. The return 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. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

pricing applicability. It was contended that the DRP\nrejected the assessee's explanation that the reporting was out of\nabundant caution, and held that qualifying remarks cannot\noverride the disclosure, and that such disclosure triggers transfer\npricing examination. The DR pointed out that the DRP also\nobserved that non-reporting as specified domestic transaction\nand reporting under Clause 18 supported

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

transfer pricing provisions were introduced by way of insertion of Section 92 to Section 92F in Chapter X of the Act containing special provisions relating to avoidance of tax in the year 2001. Section 92(1

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)

1: Erroneous transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred, both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission from Associated Enterprises

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)

1: Erroneous transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred, both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission from Associated Enterprises

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. M/s the assessee i.e. M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo Fisher Scientific India

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

1: Erroneous transfer pricing adjustment sustained by the\nCommissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]\n1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58 erred,\nboth in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs.\n76,21,361/- towards non-recovery of guarantee commission\nfrom Associated Enterprises

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price"]and Section 92 (1) which states that any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the ALP and Section 92C (1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes it clear that the transfer

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

1) ("TPO'), and the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'); is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, we raise following grounds: Transfer Pricing 2. That the learned AO/DRP erred both in facts and law in confirming the action of the learned

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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

92,620 and book loss of Rs.8,106,24,94,032. The return 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.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

price"]and Section 92 (1) which states that any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the ALP and Section 92C (1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes it clear that the transfer