KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

2) with effect from 1st April 2002. It is pointed out that while the transfer pricing provisions were brought on the statute with effect from 1st April 2001, there was an amendment in Section 92A

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

2) with effect from 1st April 2002. It is pointed out that while the transfer pricing provisions were brought on the statute with effect from 1st April 2001, there was an amendment in Section 92A

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

2) with effect from 1st April 2002. It is pointed out that while the transfer pricing provisions were brought on the statute with effect from 1st April 2001, there was an amendment in Section 92A

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

2) with effect from 1st April 2002. It is pointed out that while the transfer pricing provisions were brought on the statute with effect from 1st April 2001, there was an amendment in Section 92A

ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit-11(3)(2), M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 33/Mum/2016 (Ita No. 649/Mum/16 (A.Y- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. (Tp)A 1854/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) M/S Vinca Developers Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(3)(2), 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Room No. 427, Aayakar Road No. 07, Marol Midc, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072 Pan:Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing law, if the gods or articles manufactured or processed by one enterprises, are sold to other enterprise abroad or to person specified by such other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating thereto are influenced by such other enterprises, the two enterprises shall be deemed to be associated enterprises [See section 92A(2

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

section 92A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred, in fact and in law. in upholding the arm's length brokerage rate for yarn product at 2% as determined by Ld. AO as against 0.75% actually received by the appellant. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating that the comparable instance of 2% brokerage

VINCA DEVELOPER P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

transfer pricing provisions are not applicable to it. 1.2. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law by concurring with the learned AO / TPO's view that the Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are in the nature of loan and therefore covered under the deeming provision under Section 92A(2

VINCA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vinca Developers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 116, First Floor, Income Tax, Circle 11(3)(2), Rehab Building No. 4, “ Akruti Room No. 427, Aayakar Annex” , Road No. 7, Marol Midc, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri (East), Mubmai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaccv8042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viral Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2019

transfer pricing law, if the gods or articles manufactured or processed by one enterprises, are sold to other enterprise abroad or to person specified by such other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating thereto are influenced by such other enterprises, the two enterprises shall be deemed to be associated enterprises [See section 92A(2

SOVEREIGN SAFESHIP MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2)-2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laleit Kumar, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Soveresign Safeship Vs. Income Tax Officer Management Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)-2, Shop No.37, M.M.R.D. Mumbai Market, Vansant Pride Thakur Complex Kandivali (East) Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aamcs6425N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 92A(2)(m) of the Act, two enterprises can be termed as AEs “if there exists between the two enterprises, any relationship of mutual interest, as may be prescribed”, however, no such relationship of mutual interest had yet been prescribed by the CBDT. 5 M/s. Sovereign Safeship Management Pvt. Ltd. 5. As per Form 3CEB, the assessee had reported

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

2 907,830 453,915 Total 194 75,081,866 387,020 Average sales price per unit 387,020 Similarly, in respect of product 207-4x4-483, the TPO selected the transaction with non-AE where the average price charged is more than price charged from AE ignoring the fact that there are transaction with other non- AEs where

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHREYA LIFE SCIENCE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 92A(2)(i) of the Act which provides for AE if the goods or articles manufactured or processed by one enterprise, are sold to ufactured or processed by one enterprise, are sold to ufactured or processed by one enterprise, are sold to the other enterprise or to persons specified by the other enterprise, the other enterprise or to persons

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

Transfer Pricing Officer. In addition to these arguments, many other facets of the matter have been argued before us, but then, in our considered view, it is not really necessary to deal with those facets. 7. On a conceptual note, the determination of arm’s length price is essentially an effort to neutralize the impact of intra- AE relationship

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

price in the same or materially similar transaction "between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions". In the first place, an enterprise and its SPV are inherently associated enterprises. The definition of 'associated enterprises' under section 92A(1) covers "an enterprise which participates, directly or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital

DY CIT, CC-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES HOLDING P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

section 92A(2)(j) of the IT. Act, 1961, relating to the provision of Transfer Pricing which is as under

DY CIT, CC-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES HOLDING P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the cross-objection are allowed, and both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous

section 92A(2)(j) of the IT. Act, 1961, relating to the provision of Transfer Pricing which is as under

TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us Is A Company Now Merged In Bennett

Transfer Pricing Officer. In addition to these arguments, many other facets of the matter have been argued before us, but then, in our considered view, it is not really necessary to deal with those facets. 7. On a conceptual note, the determination of arm’s length price is essentially an effort to neutralize the impact of intra- AE relationship

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY UT WORLDWIDE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross\nobjections filed by the assesse for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-\n15 under consideration stand dismissed

2. The consequence of that approach is that the statutory burden (placed squarely on the taxpayer by Rule 10D(1)(d) to demonstrate the nature, terms, quantum, value and benefit of each service) was shifted to the Department. The respondent produced no invoices, no time sheets, no travel logs, no stock-award computations, no audited schedules of the Associated Enterprise

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

price in the same or materially similar transaction "between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions". In the first place, an enterprise and its SPV are inherently associated enterprises. The definition of 'associated enterprises' under section 92A(1) covers "an enterprise which participates, directly or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is hereby dismissed as infructuous

price in the same or materially similar transaction "between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions". In the first place, an enterprise and its SPV are inherently associated enterprises. The definition of 'associated enterprises' under section 92A(1) covers "an enterprise which participates, directly or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital