FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

section 92C of the Act r/w rule 10B. As discussed elsewhere in this order, such determination of arm's length price on ad–hoc / estimation basis is not permissible under the scheme of the Act as the Transfer Pricing Officer is duty bound to determine the arm's length price by following any one of the most appropriate method prescribed

MOTT MACDONALD P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

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

price under section 92C(1) and (2), but, in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of, it is not really necessary to deal with the same. We may also add that while these powers are vested in the Assessing Officer under section 92C, in view of the Explanation below Section 92CA(7), the Transfer

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

92C and section 92D of the I.T. Act and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule 10D(g), and Rule 10C, Rule 10B(1), Rule 10B(2) and (3) and Rule

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

Transfer Pricing Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 92CA require a mandatory notice on the assessee requiring him to produce on specified date, any evidence which the 8 ITA No. 2166 & 2167 Mum 2015 – M/s Kaybee Private Limited assessee may rely in support of computation made by him or ALP in relation to international transaction. 9. Under section 92C

M/S. MERCATOR LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

Section 92C(2) of the Act, while making the adjustment to the value of international transactions of the Appellant. Adjustment on account of fees on corporate quarantee issued by the Appellant for the benefit of the AES On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): 17. erred in confirming the action of TPO/AO in making transfer pricing

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMM OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer in selecting the RPM can also be gauged if one takes into consideration the provisions of Rule 10C of the Rules. As noted earlier, the computation of arm's length price under section 92C(1) of the Act is required to be made in terms of the most appropriate method prescribed therein. Sub-section (1) of section

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

92C in conformity with the arm's length price as so determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer." IT(TP)A No.720/MUM/2015 Page 8 of 29 “The Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s. 92CA(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961, dated 13/01/14 has held that adjustments aggregating to Rs.17,24,50,468/- is made after considering all the submissions

SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE - 7(2) PRESENTLY ASSESSED WITH DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) consider Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the submission of the assessee. However, we upheld the action of the Transfer Pricing

DCIT 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 594/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit 8(2)(2), Mumbai……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant Room No. 348, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/S. Sonata Software Ltd……………….......…..…………………....….......................................Respondent 208, T.V. Industrial Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030. [Pan: Aabcs 8459 D

section 92C(2) of the Act. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) consider Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the submission of the assessee. However, we upheld the action of the Transfer Pricing

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

section 92C (1) was received from the learned assessing officer on 31/12/2019. In paragraph number 4, the learned TPO held that:- “4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee submission and documents furnished electronically, the value of the international transaction (IT) with a in regard to ALP, are not been disturbed.” 022. Thereafter the learned transfer-pricing

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

section 92C (1) was received from the learned assessing officer on 31/12/2019. In paragraph number 4, the learned TPO held that:- “4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee submission and documents furnished electronically, the value of the international transaction (IT) with a in regard to ALP, are not been disturbed.” 022. Thereafter the learned transfer-pricing

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

section 92C (1) was received from the learned assessing officer on 31/12/2019. In paragraph number 4, the learned TPO held that:- “4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee submission and documents furnished electronically, the value of the international transaction (IT) with a in regard to ALP, are not been disturbed.” 022. Thereafter the learned transfer-pricing

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

section 92C (1) was received from the learned assessing officer on 31/12/2019. In paragraph number 4, the learned TPO held that:- “4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee submission and documents furnished electronically, the value of the international transaction (IT) with a in regard to ALP, are not been disturbed.” 022. Thereafter the learned transfer-pricing

DY.CIT 7(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MATTEL TOYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

transfer pricing pricing pricing adjustment adjustment adjustment envisages the substitution of the price of such envisages the substitution of the price of such envisages the substitution of the price of such international transaction with the ALP. international transaction with the ALP. M/s Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. M/s Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. 12 ITA No. 2304/M/2021 & CO No. 124/M/2022

M/S. INDIA MEDTRONICS PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

2,64,703 in respect of 8. difference in prices charged by its AEs to the assessee and to the third party in India. Further, in principle the learned CIT(A) had followed the direction issued by DRP for AY 2006-07 for all the transfer pricing related grounds of appeal but failed to follow the same for this ground

SABMILLER INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

2) of section 92 of the Act, he submitted, it empowers the Assessing Officer to determine the arm's length price of benefit, service or facilities. He submitted, there is no restriction imposed on the Transfer Pricing Officer to only determine the arm's length price or cost of expenditure allocated. He submitted, the cost or expenditure allocated or apportioned

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

2. 9.36% furnished during TP assessment using lexis database) Venevision International Corporation and Univision Communications Inc (from additional 3. 7.50% search furnished during TP assessment using lexis database) Average 6.45% 40 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 93. Considering average rate of royalty of 6.45% versus royalty paid by assessee @ 7%, the Transfer Pricing Officer made adjustment

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SIRO CLINPHARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing set out in the Income-tax Act, 1961, can only be done in respect of an 'international transaction'. Section 92(1) provides that, "(a)ny income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price". In order to attract the arm's length price adjustment, therefore, a transaction