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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), 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

transfer-pricing\nregime, introduced by the Finance Act 2001 in sections 92A to 92F, is purpose-built to\nensure that arm's-length determinations respond sensitively to market conditions that\nmay change from one year to the next. The Commissioner's presumption of factual\ncontinuity is the antithesis of that statutory instructions and construction.\n1. 4. The Commissioner's approach

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DSV SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLYUT 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

transfer-pricing\nregime, introduced by the Finance Act 2001 in Sections 92A to 92F, is purpose-built to\nensure that arm's-length determinations respond sensitively to market conditions that\nmay change from one year to the next. The Commissioner's presumption of factual\ncontinuity is the antithesis of that statutory instructions and construction.\n1. 4. The Commissioner's approach

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of the goods and services falling u/s.80IA(8) has to be\ncompulsorily be determined under arm's length principle. Had it been so, then\npost introduction of SDT in Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would\nhave provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market\nvalue” in relation to goods or services means

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

transferred to the Associated Enterprise. At this stage, I must observe, a holistic\nreading of Explanation under sub section (8) of section 80IA of the Act would make it\nclear that clause (i) and clause (ii) operate in different situations. When the transaction\nbetween the related parties is in the nature of SDT coming within the ambit of section\n92BA

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT2(3) (1) - , MUMBAI

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

transfer to any other business carried on by the assessee, the same should correspond to market value of such goods and services. The market value has to be seen qua the price in which such goods or services would ordinarily be fetched in the open market, i.e., whether in the open market the price of such goods and services

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred to the Associated Enterprise. At this stage, I must observe, a holistic reading of Explanation under sub section (8) of section 80IA of the Act would make it clear that clause (i) and clause (ii) operate in different situations. When the transaction between the related parties is in the nature of SDT coming within the ambit of section 92BA

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92CA(1)", "92C(3)", "92C(1)", "234C", "270A", "92B", "92A", "92F(ii)", "10AB", "92", "230", "232", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

2(f), the Assessee submits that a\nBilateral Advanced Pricing Agreement (BAPA) was entered into with Central\nBoard of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 30 January 2023 for the transaction of\nprovision of ITeS for the covered period of FY 2015-16 to FY 2019-20.\nConsidering that there is no change in the functions performed by the Assessee

AAACORP EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Aaa Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. C-206, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 Pan: Aacca8815C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Income Tax Offices, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub- section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions of sub-section

M/S. SP IMPERIAL STAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (‘ld. TPO’ for short) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act, with respect to the lending or borrowing of money (T.P. Risk Parameter) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’ for short) of the transaction as per Section 92CA of the Act. The ld. TPO issued notice u/s. 92CA(2) of the Act, for furnishing documents maintained

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

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

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

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

Sections 92, 92A to 92F of the Act is considered, then it has to be reckoned as sufficient compliance by the assessee for the arm's length standard prescribed by the Indian transfer pricing regulations. Without prejudice he submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings of the Indian AEs for the same year under consideration following upward adjustment have

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

transferred to the Associated Enterprise. At this stage, I\nmust observe, a holistic reading of Explanation under sub section (8) of section\n80IA of the Act would make it clear that clause (i) and clause (ii) operate in\ndifferent situations. When the transaction between the related parties is in the\nnature of SDT coming within the ambit of section 92BA