PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

PUBLICS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

PUBLICIS COMMUNICATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, for assessment year 2012 – 13, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

method. However, for the purposes of comparing of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), assessee has chosen itself i.e. an Indian entity as tested party. However, the comparables were chosen pertaining to Asia Pacific Region. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the transfer pricing study report of the assessee as no relevant data were available. The assessee was asked to provide

M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

TP adjustment of Rs. 3,42,83,120/ 3,42,83,120/- as Corporate Guarantee Commission taking as Corporate Guarantee Commission taking calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned calculated @ 1.40%. Without Prejudice the Learned FAO/TPO FAO/TPO FAO/TPO ought ought ought to to to have have have restricted restricted restricted the Guarantee the the Guarantee

OMNIACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

method as adopted by the assessee was appropriate methodology and therefore, no TP adjustment would be warranted on these transactions. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.1 of the appeal.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. As noted by the DRP, the facts and circumstances in which transfer pricing

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TP) Adjustments\n-Without prejudice grounds, on merits of the purported ALP adjustments\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned\nTransfer Pricing Officer (\"Ld. TPO\") erred in making an arm's length price\nadjustment on the sale price of the electricity produced by the eligible unit [i.e.\nthe unit

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

TP Adjustment 36,38,25,151 Total Disallowances 659,75,09,200 Taxable income under the head business or profession 474,01,91,199 Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed deposit 4,19,03,514 4,19,03,514 Total income 478,20,94,713/- Total income (as per Normal Provisions

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

price method adopted by the assessee is most appropriate method is correct. The method mentioned by ld AO in TP order is Cost plus method, there is no finding of dl CIT (A) that how now the most appropriate method is RPM. 017. We are also not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the learned transfer

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

price method adopted by the assessee is most appropriate method is correct. The method mentioned by ld AO in TP order is Cost plus method, there is no finding of dl CIT (A) that how now the most appropriate method is RPM. 017. We are also not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the learned transfer

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEA PROCESSING ENGINEERING INDIA P.LTD, GUJRAT

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2010 – 11 is partly allowed and CO of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 216/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1213/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2005-06) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Acit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 127/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 6494/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S. Gea Procees Engineering Dcit Cir 2(2)(1) (I) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. R.No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, Savali Road, P.O. Dumad M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Baroda, Gujarat-391 740

price method adopted by the assessee is most appropriate method is correct. The method mentioned by ld AO in TP order is Cost plus method, there is no finding of dl CIT (A) that how now the most appropriate method is RPM. 017. We are also not in agreement with the methodology adopted by the learned transfer

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

transfer pricing adjustment to the manufacturing segment for each plant separately using internal plant separately using internal TNMM as most appropriate method, TNMM as most appropriate method, comparing the margin of export sales to third parties with t he comparing the margin of export sales to third parties with t he comparing the margin of export sales to third parties

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

transfer pricing adjustment to the manufacturing segment for each plant separately using internal plant separately using internal TNMM as most appropriate method, TNMM as most appropriate method, comparing the margin of export sales to third parties with t he comparing the margin of export sales to third parties with t he comparing the margin of export sales to third parties

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 noted that assessee has not submitted form number 3CEB for the year under consideration. There was no reference that how transactions of export sales, import were benchmarked by the assessee by adopting which method, and how ALP of such transactions was determined. 023. Thus, it is correctly held by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax that

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 noted that assessee has not submitted form number 3CEB for the year under consideration. There was no reference that how transactions of export sales, import were benchmarked by the assessee by adopting which method, and how ALP of such transactions was determined. 023. Thus, it is correctly held by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax that

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 noted that assessee has not submitted form number 3CEB for the year under consideration. There was no reference that how transactions of export sales, import were benchmarked by the assessee by adopting which method, and how ALP of such transactions was determined. 023. Thus, it is correctly held by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax that

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 noted that assessee has not submitted form number 3CEB for the year under consideration. There was no reference that how transactions of export sales, import were benchmarked by the assessee by adopting which method, and how ALP of such transactions was determined. 023. Thus, it is correctly held by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax that

CASTROL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blecastrol India Limited V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Technopolis Knowledge Park Delhi Mahakali Caves Road Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aaacc4481E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Ms. A. Alankrutha

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,49,14,465. While proposing the adjustment, the Ld. AO/ TPO erred in:. (a) Rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant wherein the Appellant has applied 'Other Method

SAS INSTITUTE (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer. Paragraph no.15 of the order of the co- ordinate Bench categorically deals with this issue as under. The order of the co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- “15. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant paper books filed before us. The undisputed facts are that

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

method as adopted by the assessee was appropriate methodology and therefore, no TP adjustment would be warranted on these transactions. By deleting the same, we allow ground no.1 of the appeal.” (Emphasis Supplied) As noted by the DRP, the facts and circumstances in which transfer 11. pricing