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

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

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

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

3) insists upon the contemporaneity of the underlying documentation. As per the OECD Guidelines, transfer-pricing analysis is intrinsically time-specific and must reflect conditions at the time the associated enterprises transact. The Commissioner nevertheless treated the relief granted in 2010-11 as a surrogate for proof of services in 2012-13, thereby evading the evidentiary standards set by section

MAERSK TANKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

3 of 2016 dated 10.03.2016,\nwhich is binding on the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that\nwhere a taxpayer reports a transaction in Form 3CEB with\nqualifying remarks to the effect that the transaction is neither an\ninternational transaction nor a specified domestic transaction,\nthe Assessing Officer is mandatorily required to record\nsatisfaction that there is income or potential income

DHL LOGISTICS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation maintained by the Appellant in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules); 4.2 failing to appreciate the economic rationale of using "Operating Profit/ Value Added Expenses" as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), and instead using "Operating Profit/ Total Cost (OP/TC

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Transfer pricing study report ('TP Study Report')\nmaintained as per Section 92D of the Income Act 1962 (the 'Act*) read with\nRule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the 'Rules').\n2:3

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 Officer was not entitled to examine the matter\nafresh for the year under examination and to arrive at a different result. That assumption\napplies a principle of factual continuity that the Income-tax Act pointedly rejects.\nSection 143(3) requires a separate enquiry for each year. section 92C, by its design,\ndemands that the arm's-length character

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 Officer was not entitled to examine the matter\nafresh for the year under examination and to arrive at a different result. That assumption\napplies a principle of factual continuity that the Income-tax Act pointedly rejects.\nSection 143(3) requires a separate enquiry for each year. section 92C, by its design,\ndemands that the arm's-length character

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Transfer pricing study report ('TP Study Report') maintained as per Section 92D of the Income Act 1962 (the 'Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 2:3

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing provisions, which requires\ndetermination of ALP.\n24. The letters of comfort, pursuant to which the loan of Rs.123.46 crore was\navailable by the associated enterprises from the banks outside India, are\nreproduced as under, for ready reference:-\n(i) “Re. Facilities extended by Citibank N.A to Asian Paints (Bangladesh) Limited\nWe confirm that we are aware

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

3) of Section 92C which provides that the Assessing Officer may intervene only if he is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that the price charged in the international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), or information and documents relating to the international transaction

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

3) of Section 92C which provides that the Assessing Officer may intervene only if he is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that the price charged in the international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), or information and documents relating to the international transaction

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

3) of Section 92C which provides that the Assessing Officer may intervene only if he is, on the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that the price charged in the international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), or information and documents relating to the international transaction