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

92C,92D and and and 92E 92E 92E ,"international ,"international ,"international transaction" transaction" transaction" means means means a a a transaction transaction transaction between between between two two two or or or more more more associated associated associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non terprises, either or both of whom are non terprises, either or both of whom

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) the price at which the C(2) the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed to be the arm’s length price. ength price. This is so because

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) the price at which the C(2) the price at which the international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed international transaction has actually been undertaken is to be deemed to be the arm’s length price. ength price. This is so because

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

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

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

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

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

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

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. ()

section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings. 68

CLSA INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,82,394/- to be made to the transactions value of the transactions of the assessee with its AE. The Assessing Officer has computed the total income of the assessee under sub section (4) of section 92C

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

68 of Rs.24,19,212/-. 18. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the Ld.AR of the assessee vehemently argued that during re-assessment, the AO made necessary enquiries with regard to the applicability of Proviso to section 92C

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 ()

68,748 7.1 The Ld. TPO however was not convinced The Ld. TPO however was not convinced with the explanation with the explanation of the assessee. The TPO rejected the comparables selected by the he TPO rejected the comparables selected by the he TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee, which were located in South Africa which were located