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

920/– and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of ₹ 21,100,663/–. The adjustment on account of the transfer pricing was made in view of the order of the learned transfer pricing officer dated 6/1/2016 passed under section

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld.\nAO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following\ngrounds, taken singly or cumulatively:\n2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions\nstipulated in section 920

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 which the shares are issued to the employees in order to compensate the payout obligation which might arise on ESOP shares either at buyback or at liquidation. 9.10 Allowability of ESOP expense in the income Tax Act- There is no specific section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision

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

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld. AO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following grounds, taken singly or cumulatively: 2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions stipulated in section 920

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld.\nAO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following\ngrounds, taken singly or cumulatively:\n2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions\nstipulated in section 920

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

transfer pricing adjustments/additions/variations made by the ld.\nAO as being bad in law, illegal and unsustainable on the basis of the following\ngrounds, taken singly or cumulatively:\n2.1.1 a) The Id. DCIT has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions\nstipulated in section 920

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

Transfer Pricing, 4 (1) (2), Mumbai (the learned TPO) to examine arm’s-length price of those international transactions. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 4. The learned TPO passed an order under section 92CA (3) on 31/10/2019 dealing with the international transactions as under: – i. On verification of Form No. 3CEB, the TPO noted that

TOWERS WATSON INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

transfer pricing adjustment Payment made for availing consultancy services 11. erred in upholding the learned TPO's action of determining the arm's length price of the international transaction of availing consulting services from its AE amounting to Rs.99,27,601 to be Nil by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using the CUP method; Payment made towards

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

920/- 3. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer further made the following disallowances:- 1. Disallowance u/s 10B Rs.11,44,12,969/- 2. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) Rs. 5,84,54,070/- 3. Disallowance of premium on FCCB Rs.55,44,94,544/- 4. Disallowance under section

M/S ESSAR SHIPPING LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nregulations do not apply to Assessee to the extent of operations carried out through\noperating qualifying ships, where the income is taxed under the Tonnage Tax scheme.\nAccordingly, TP additions for Rs.51,46,215/- being interest on lease loan from\nqualifying assets being a Ship i.e. MV Maithili and MV Maanika to the AE M/s Essar Shipping DMCC

TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(3), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Adjustment made by the learned AO/Hon'ble DRP is bad in\nlaw, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to and/or beyond and in excess of the\nexpress statutory provisions of the Act including sections 4, 5, 9, 92, 920

RUBICON RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUBICON RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment. V. Rejection of Benchmarking Without Satisfying Preconditions of Section 92C(3) Is Bad in Law 1. The TPO has rejected the Assessee's benchmarking analysis without fulfilling any of the preconditions under Section 92C(3), which are mandatory, The TPO has not demonstrated: • that the Assessee has not followed methods prescribed, • or that the data used

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1) of the Act for the computation of arm's length price in relation to international transactions entered by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The TPO noted that during the relevant previous year the Appellant 62. has reported a international transaction being payment

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

920 provides that if the variation between the ALP determined by the TPO and the price at which international transaction has actually undertaken the word "such percentage was substituted for 5% of the letter by Finance Act. 2011 wet. 01.04.2012. Further the words "not exceeding 25% was inserted by Finance Act. 2012 wet 01.04.2013 in the case of the appellant

NTT INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/TAX/ITO, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 119,52,99,430/- to the value of international transactions in respect of payment of management fees to its Associate Enterprise (AE') i.e. NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. ('NTT Asia' - formerly known as Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte Ltd). 2 NTT India Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFCA, New Delhi

THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

920 M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. 2.1 Brief facts are that, the Assessee had claimed the gross interest of Rs. 24,14,88,425 earned on tax free bonds as exempt under section 10(15)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and gross dividend of Rs. 20,00,495 earned on shares as exempt under section

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

920 M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. 2.1 Brief facts are that, the Assessee had claimed the gross interest of Rs. 24,14,88,425 earned on tax free bonds as exempt under section 10(15)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and gross dividend of Rs. 20,00,495 earned on shares as exempt under section

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

920 M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. 2.1 Brief facts are that, the Assessee had claimed the gross interest of Rs. 24,14,88,425 earned on tax free bonds as exempt under section 10(15)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and gross dividend of Rs. 20,00,495 earned on shares as exempt under section