JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing order, the ld AO should not have passed the draft assessment order. Thus provision of section 144C does not apply to the assessee. Thus, the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21 Months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as held by the co-ordinate Bench in ATOS India Private Limited (supra

JOHNSON &JOHNSON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT/JT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing order, the ld AO should not have passed the draft assessment order. Thus provision of section 144C does not apply to the assessee. Thus, the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21 Months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as held by the co-ordinate Bench in ATOS India Private Limited (supra

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PVT. LTD.(FRMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

transfer pricing order, the ld AO should not have passed the draft assessment order. Thus provision of section 144C does not apply to the assessee. Thus, the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21 Months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as held by the co-ordinate Bench in ATOS India Private Limited (supra

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. 55. Section 928 defines 'international transaction' as under: "Meaning of international transaction. 928.(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92,92C,92D and 92E ,"international transaction‖ means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property

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

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

price. 55. Section 928 defines 'international transaction' as under: "Meaning of international transaction. 928.(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92,92C,92D and 92E ,"international transaction‖ means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property

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

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

price. 55. Section 928 defines 'international transaction' as under: "Meaning of international transaction. 928.(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92,92C,92D and 92E ,"international transaction‖ means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are nonresidents; in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing- 3(2)(1), Mumbai, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: 1.1. not appreciating that explanation to section 92B of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 does not alter the basic character of the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 928

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Transfer Pricing- 3(2)(1), Mumbai, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: 1.1. not appreciating that explanation to section 92B of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 does not alter the basic character of the definition of 'international transaction' u/s 928

VVF (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 928 of the Act independent of the international transaction of sale of goods and services to AEs. 5.3.That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT ,RANGE 5 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly\nallowed for statistical purposes, as per our aforesaid observations

transfer pricing adjustment envisages\nthesubstitution of the price of such international transaction\nwith the ALP. 54.Under Sections 92B to 92F, the pre-requisite\nfor commencing the TP exerciseis to show the existence of an\ninternational transaction. The next step is todetermine the\nprice of such transaction. The third step would be to\ndeterminethe ALP by applying one of the five

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY C/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

928 9 Reimbursement of secondment charges and 3,412,523 other charges to UPSCO 10 Recovery of expenses from UPS WWF 285,438,222 11 Recovery of expenses from UPSCO 143,296 12 Payment of withholding taxes on behalf of 20,707,391 UPS WWF 6. The Ld.TPO in the transfer pricing study report filed by the assessee noted that

STANDARD CHARTERED INVESTMENTS & LOAN INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

transfer pricing addition of INR 8,150/- contending that the PNB interest rate card cannot be adopted to benchmark the interest charged by a private company such as the Appellant as PNB was a nationalized bank. However, there is nothing on record to support the aforesaid contention of the Appellant. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the Final

M/S GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM.OF INCOME TAX 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment. 3. The AO/TPO/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in holding that the transaction of giving financial guarantees by the Appellant on behalf of its AES is an "international transaction" under Section 928

NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly\nallowed

section\n92CA be sustained in toto.\nDecision\n82. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the\nentire facts and material referred to before us and the\nobservation and the findings given in the TPO's order as well\nas DRP's direction. Here in this case, the entire edifice of the\ntransfer-pricing adjustment rests upon

INDORAMA VENTURES OXIDES ANKLESHWAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 16,78,40.626/-on account of purchase\nof business from Huntsman International (India) Private Limited (\"HIPL\")\n4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\ntransfer pricing officer (\"Ld. TPO\")/Ld. AD under the directions of the Ld. DRP\nerred in making upward adjustment

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

transfer pricing provisions, which\nrequires determination of ALP.\n24. The letters of comfort, pursuant to which the loan of Rs.123.46 crore\nwas availed by the associated enterprises from the banks outside India, are\nreproduced as under, for ready reference:-\n(i) \"Re. Facilities extended by Citibank N.A to Asian Paints (Bangladesh)\nLimited\nWe confirm that we are aware

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing provisions, which\nrequires determination of ALP.\n24. The letters of comfort, pursuant to which the loan of Rs.123.46 crore\nwas availed by the associated enterprises from the banks outside India, are\nreproduced as under, for ready reference:-\n(i) “Re. Facilities extended by Citibank N.A to Asian Paints (Bangladesh)\nLimited\nWe confirm that we are aware

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in order to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the transaction. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) dated 28.07.2021 in which TP Adjustment of Rs. 4,02,88,853/- was determined. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the TP Adjustment. Additionally the AO also made the below adjustments while passing