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. AO has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions stipulated\nin section 92C

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer under section 92CA (3) of the act dated 27/1/2021 says that reference under section 92C (1) was received

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer under section 92CA (3) of the act dated 27/1/2021 says that reference under section 92C (1) was received

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI CITY vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI CITY

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer under section 92CA (3) of the act dated 27/1/2021 says that reference under section 92C (1) was received

ZENZI PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (TRANSFER PRICING)-4, MUMBAI

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

transfer pricing officer under section 92CA (3) of the act dated 27/1/2021 says that reference under section 92C (1) was received

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 adjustments inter-alia states that "by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C

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 [Others] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether while determining ALP of international transactions entered into by assessee, TPO cannot adopt any other method except methods prescribed in section 92C(1) - Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer

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

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

price [Others] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether while determining ALP of international transactions entered into by assessee, TPO cannot adopt any other method except methods prescribed in section 92C(1) - Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer

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

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

price [Others] - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether while determining ALP of international transactions entered into by assessee, TPO cannot adopt any other method except methods prescribed in section 92C(1) - Held, yes [Para 66] II. Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price is not reliable or correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and correct, hence the same deserves to be rejected and provisions of section 92C(3)(a) and 92C(3)(c) are invoked to provisions of section 92C(3)(a) and 92C(3)(c) are invoked to provisions

DCIT CIR 1, THANE vs. LAXCESS INDIA P.LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

LANXESS INDIA P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess House, Plot No. Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B A/162-164, Road No. 27, Vs. Wing Asher It Park, Road, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti College, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Midc, Thane (West)-400 604. Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, 6Th Floor, B Wing Lanxess House, Plot No. Asher It Park, Road, 16-Z, Vs. A/162-164, Road No. 27, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti (West)-400604. College, Midc, Thane (West)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

section 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in 92C(2) of the IT Act is concerned, we are not in agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made by the assessee. The agreement with the working made

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Section 92CA(3) of the Act which was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. 12.2. The Assessee filed objection before the DRP against the above transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP Expenditure. The DRP agreed with the Assessing Officer and declined to give any directions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order

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: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 2.1.1 a) The Id. AO has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions stipulated in section 92C

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

section 144C(13), upholding the transfer pricing adjustments in full. The additions made in the final assessment are as under: The additions made in the final assessment are as under: The additions made in the final assessment are as under: S. No. Particulars Particulars Amount (INR) Amount (INR) 1 Income as per return Income as per return Nil 2 Unabsorbed

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

transfer pricing study report. II. WHICH IS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD IN THE TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION? 34.1. The controversy in the present case revolves around the selection of the most appropriate method between the CUP method 42 Star India Private Limited and the `Other method’. We have noted above that section 92C

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

section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (2) Where a reference is made under sub-section (1), the Transfer Pricing