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. 92CA. (1) ……………………………………………………………………………………… (2) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2A) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2B) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2C) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D

TUBACEX PRAKASH INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/CY/ASSTT/CIT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, 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.3 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. 92CA. (1) ……………………………………………………………………………………… (2) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2A) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2B) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (2C) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS AG ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING CIRCLE -4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Pricing Officer(TPO). A notice u/s 92D(3)dated 18.12.2018 was issued calling for detailed information and documents under Section 92D (3) of the Act read with Rule 10D. The TPO thereafter passed Transfer

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ` 5,68,97,341. 144. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting and telecasting of television channels. Accordingly, it incurs up–linking charges in connection with its broadcasting business. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee paid ` 5,68,97,341, towards up–linking fees to Television Eighteen India

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

92D(3) of the Act cannot be vague or casualty issued, but must require furnishing of specific information or documents which the taxpayer failed to furnish under section 92CA(2) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of section 92C(3), 92CA

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

92D(3) of the Act cannot be vague or casualty issued, but must require furnishing of specific information or documents which the taxpayer failed to furnish under section 92CA(2) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of section 92C(3), 92CA

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

3 comparable un-controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate controlled price (CUP) method as most appropriate method. The relevant conclusion mentioned (PB 121) in the transfer method. The relevant conclusion mentioned (PB 121) in the transfer method. The relevant conclusion mentioned (PB 121) in the transfer pricing report is reproduced as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(IT)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SIEMENS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

transfer pricing study report and international transaction entered into with its AE that the assessee has completely complied with Rule 10D(i) of the Rules. We noted that from the letter issued by revenue dated 07.09.2015 i.e. notice under section 92CA(2) read with section 92D(3

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

3) of the Act passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -1(5), Mumbai is without jurisdiction and bad in law since Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) cannot be a TPO as per section 92CA of the Act for the year under consideration; 2. The Ld. AO erred in a passing draft assessment order

ASST. CIT 32 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KAPU GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax 32(2), M/S Kapu Gems, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, E Tower, Ec-3021, Bharat C-41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Bandra East, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfk 3266 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Deharia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92D(3) of I.T. Act. If a Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92D(3) of I.T. Act. If a Transfer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. Aggrieved by the adjustment so proposed by the Assessing Officer, assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. However, DRP declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that the assessment order, upon expiry of time limit under section 144C, has already been issued. The assessee then approached learned CIT(A) in appeal but without

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. Aggrieved by the adjustment so proposed by the Assessing Officer, assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. However, DRP declined to interfere in the matter on the ground that the assessment order, upon expiry of time limit under section 144C, has already been issued. The assessee then approached learned CIT(A) in appeal but without

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

3,36,92,601 -8.10% 6. Sanspareils Greenlands Sanspareils Greenlands 91,20,16,886 83,44,66,681 7,75,50,206 7,75,50,206 8.50% Pvt. Ltd. Average of comparable Average of comparable 3.34% selected by TPO Mattel India

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

3. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai ('CIT Mumbai ('CIT-A') erred on facts

HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

3. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai ('CIT Mumbai ('CIT-A') erred on facts

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

3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee.  Section 92CA(4) of the Act states that on the receipt of the order, the AO shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee according to section 92C(4) of the Act. On the perusal of the section

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

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the 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

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

92D, the assessing officer may proceed to determine the arm’s-length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with subsection 1 and on the basis of such material or information or document available with him. From a plain reading of the said section, it is clear that the notice in terms of provisions of subsection 3